marianbaldonado.files.wordpress.com · Web viewQuantitatively, performance scores on ColorGrab...
Transcript of marianbaldonado.files.wordpress.com · Web viewQuantitatively, performance scores on ColorGrab...
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 1
Evaluation of Sphero Among Different Age Groups
Marian Baldonado
University of California Santa Cruz
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 2
Abstract
This paper investigates the underlying motivations, strengths, and weaknesses on the use
of Sphero the robotic ball by people of different age groups. This study uses a focus group for
explorative purposes that covers difficulties, ease, changes, and personal investment into Sphero
and combines qualitative and quantitative analyses. This aims to include the older population in
the design discussions surrounding. This study revealed that the older population preferred
salient haptic feedback and design aesthetics with practical functions while the younger
population preferred more diversity in the actions that Sphero could accomplish.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 3
1. Introduction
Sphero is a robotic sphere designed with the intent to facilitate Connected Play.
Designers of Sphero claim that Connected Play is the connection formed between humans
that is mediated by robots, which encourages interactions with both human-human and
human-robot. Sphero differs from traditional purposes of robots because it extends outside of
industrial zones into the domestic front. Some the basic functions of Sphero include rolling,
changing colors, location sensing, accessibility with Bluetooth devices, and programmability.
Even though the company’s target user demographic is children 8 to 14 years old, and robot
enthusiasts, Co-founder Adam Wilson also boasts about the educational factor that Sphero
provides in early teaching of programming [1; 2]. Despite the high expectations surrounding
Sphero, the assessment of the developer’s claims need not only be tested with the target
demographic but also the indirect stakeholders that Sphero affects in the domestic household:
parents, grandparents, older children.
Social robots in the domestic sphere are advancing from a novel idea to a rapidly iterating
field. According to Frennert, Eftring and Östlund, the perseverance of the older population
drives a subsection of assistive robotics research. Unfortunately, the older population may
only be represented in the design process through a developer’s image of them as users [3].
The issue with the development of social robots today is that older groups of people are
purposely ignored or stereotyped, yet are centered as main consumers[3]. How can
developer’s and companies embed solutions based on the preferences, needs, and wants of an
older generation if they are left out of discussion?
2. The study
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 4
The purpose of this pilot focus group is to both assess the claims of the designers of Sphero
and to explore the use case, strengths, and improvements identified by an older demographic
compared to the younger demographic. This study combines qualitative and quantitative analysis
on the answers given and the scales measured in the post-question interviews. Qualitatively,
semi-structured post-interview discussion questions and recorded behaviors and exclamations
during the use of Sphero were analyzed. Quantitatively, performance scores on ColorGrab
application with Sphero, recommendation ratings, and market and personal investment
predictions were statistically analyzed.
2.1 Participants
There were two focus group sessions, comprised of 4 people each, with 50% in the less
than 20 years old range and the other 50% above 20 years old (See Table 1).
Session 1 Session 2
Persons under 20 2 2
Persons over 20 2 2
Table 1 : Breakdown of age groups and number of participants in each session.
The participants were recruited via convenience sample with the first session conducted with my
family and the second session with my housemates—all participants are naïve users of Sphero.
Because of the convenient sample, I was able to conduct the sessions in the living space of the
participants (See Figure 1).
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 5
Fig. 1: Picture of Session 1 playing ColorGrab with Sphero.
3. Qualitative analysis- Focus group discussion
The Qualitative measures are analyzed through recorded discussion and play behavior
during the basic functions of Sphero on the Sphero application, ColorGrab, and the post-
interview.
3.1 Problems
The participants under 20 years old identified that: the main problem is the lack of color
feedback (See Figure 2). 100% of participants in the younger age range agreed that Sphero
needed more difference between yellow-green and purple-blue. Older persons identified
problems with controls and instructions, the extraneous bulk of color and buttons, feedback when
settings change, the need for a tutorial, and possible interactions with pet (See Figure 3).
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 6
Fig. 2: Problem rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage of
people that mentioned it.
Fig. 3: Problem rates of persons over 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage of
people that mentioned it.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 7
3.2 Easy
The participants under 20 years old identified that the easiest part of using Sphero is the
controls and holistically understanding the capabilities of Sphero (See Figure 4). Older persons
identified that the easiest part of Sphero are the direct interactions with grabbing Sphero and the
direct feedback from pressing buttons (See Figure 5).
Fig. 4: Easy rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage of people
that mentioned it.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 8
Fig. 5: Easy rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage of people
that mentioned it.
3.3 Concerns
The participants under 20 years old identified that the main concern is the lack purpose
for Sphero in group settings. 100% of participants in the younger age range agreed that Sphero
needed an aim (See Figure 6). Older persons identified concerns with Sphero being
unimpressive, constantly getting stuck, gets lost often, and gets dirty often (See Figure 7).
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 9
Fig. 6: Concern rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage of
people that mentioned it.
Fig. 7: Concern rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage
of people that mentioned it.
3.4 Desired features
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 10
The main recommendations that participants under 20 years old wanted to change are the
ability for Sphero to jump, talk, play music, and record ground movement (with a camera). Older
participants desired a camera to record ground movement also, the ability to talk, play music,
change the skin of Sphero, and create a more dynamic and stable redesign so that it doesn’t look
like it can break easily.
Fig. 8: Desired features rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage
of people that mentioned it.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 11
Fig. 9: Desired features rates of persons under 20 years old. Includes what they mentioned and percentage
of people that mentioned it.
4. Quantitative analysis- ColorGrab performance
The Quantitative measures analyzed where extracted from the post-interview questions
that asked about recommendations to a friend, the difference between market price and personal
investment predictions, and the ColorGrab performance. The recommendations were measured
with a 5 point Likert scale with 1 = Very much not recommend, 2 = Not recommend, 3 =
Neutral, 4 = Recommend, and 5 = Very much recommend. The participant’s prediction on the
market price of Sphero was subtracted from what the participants would have paid for Sphero;
the difference was used in the statistical analysis. Finally, the ColorGrab performance was taken
from the scores of all the participants after playing ColorGrab.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 12
All three quantitative measures were analyzed via t-test with a 95% confidence interval
comparing the younger aged group with the older age group. I found that there was no significant
difference between the younger age group and the older age group for the Sphero
recommendation, t (6) = 2.236, p > 0.05 p = 0.067 n.s. Similarly, there was no significant
difference between the younger age group and the older age group for the difference in market
price prediction and the personal investment, t (6) = -.778, p > 0.05 p = 0.466 n.s. There was
significant difference in the performance on ColorGrab between the younger age group and the
older age group, t (6) = 3.225, p < 0.05 p = 0.018 s.
Fig. 10: Scatterplot for performance in ColorGrab of all participants from both age groups. t(6) =3.225, p < 0.05, p = 0.018
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Older participants expressed more problems, ease of use, concerns, and desired features
with Sphero that ranged from aesthetic and functionality violations than the younger participants.
For example, for the concerns, the older population took into account personal procedures of
when Sphero needs to be cleaned or found while younger participants focused on more engaging
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 13
missions to master. The development of programming features that the developers included takes
into account those that prefer a challenge and personal accomplishment with Sphero, but lacks
the naïve need for tutorials or autonomy for when lost or dirtied. These extensive concerns could
be because of the exclusion or lack of participation of elder groups in the developmental process
in the creation of Sphero [4]. Negligence of a demographic may influence the people’s
acceptance of domestic robots [3]. If indirect users of Sphero are left out of the conversation in
the creation of the system that is supposed to increase connected play within a household, then
how can that system reflect and address the needs of those who are indirectly using Sphero? This
exclusion significantly widens the gap in performance between those in the younger age group
and the older age group when using Sphero. As seen in Figure 10, those who are older did
significantly worse than those who were younger in ColorGrab because of lack of color
discrepancy. This affects investments and experience with Sphero and other robotic innovations,
so we need to bridge this gap in order to be accepted by both groups of people.
All in all we need to include and take into account the problems, concerns, and solutions
of older groups to avoid omitting risk violations. Some actionable recommendations for Sphero
are for aesthetic to change outer shell so that it doesn’t get dirty easily and make the base of
Sphero a sturdier material. For functionality, there needs to be explicit feedback when colors and
task change, add a tutorial in the beginning that can be skipped, change the inverted controls to
direct controls, and possibly include an accessory that is a sensor return for when Sphero is out
of sight.
Running Head: EVALUATION OF SPHERO ON DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS 14
References
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/14/sphero-2-0-is-twice-as-fast-agile-and-awesome/
[2] http://mashable.com/2014/01/05/sphero-2b/#BM6Q0C0TYiqE
[3] Frennert, S., Eftring, H., & Östlund, B. (2013). What Older People Expect of Robots: A
Mixed Methods Approach. Social Robotics Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 19-29.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_3
[4] Frennert, S., & Östlund, B. (2014). Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and
Older People. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 299-310. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-
0225-8