Subject:
|
RE: Lego & BHC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:03:13 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <rlimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.comSAYNOTOSPAM>
|
Viewed:
|
1008 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr. Choate,
It was evident to me that you asked for information about how to improve
(or create) a product to fulfill customer needs, and I answered you
because I thought my insight could be relevant. What the product is and
who it is for is of little importance from a 10,000 foot perspective.
But, in specific reference to your question(s), I mentioned a universal
system already in place and also suggested how to create the research
information you wanted (in the event it doesn't exist).
Simply put, you asked how one might go about communicating 3D assembly
to someone with a vision impairment so you could mimic that with a
computer.
To be fair for libeling me with remarks about inferior mental capacity,
let us assume your neurons failed to absorb my response:
Clearer understanding comes from experience and knowledge. Therefore,
to know a blind person's point of view, one should simulate being blind.
If one is going to study something, they should also document it.
Taping the session(s) is a easy way to do so and also captures
attitudes, movements, and reactions: things that might require replays
to pick up on. The reference to peeron.com and LDraw was to provide a
list of standardized part names and remind you of an existing
computerized modeling system.
In the marketing world, such a study would be called "usability testing"
and is partially the reason all products we buy are shaped, colored,
have certain features, and function the way they do. The whole
objective is to find out what problems need to be solved, what problems
arise from solutions, what features haven't been included in current
products, or what products don't exist that would make life easier.
From observing the interaction(s), you will discover what communication
is most helpful and what is not. If a person with normal vision cannot
explain 3D building instructions to someone visually impaired, then
you'll never be able to get a computer to do it. What I suggested to
you allows for a system that can be read by computer or human. (For
example, envision a class with blind students and a teacher is
explaining how to build with LEGO's. In a student's spare time, they
could listen to instruction from a computer--the difference is what/who
is speaking).
The key in my response is LDraw, which is a free CAD-style program. It
already has piece names for most LEGO elements and uses a uniform
coordinate system. The files are ASCII text, so manipulating them
should be easy. Point of origin reference could be recalculated, if
necessary. Basically, it is a system that with a little work could be
used with a text-to-speech program.
As it exists right now, reading an LDraw file aloud would be weird
because of the references for rotation/orientation and inclusion of
other DAT files as pieces and sub-assemblies. Some sort of application
to convert the text into a basic form of written communication--a
translator of sorts (which could even contain appropriate language
dictionaries). Then, during text to speech conversion, it would be read
as "2 x 4 brick rotated 90 degrees about the x axis and placed on top of
the 2x8 brick", perhaps.
Which goes back to the usability testing... Instead of using a "trial
and error" approach, you observe the simulated scenario: instructions
given to a sight impaired person by a human with normal vision--how does
one describe assembly instructions clearly? You observe how both people
adapt on the fly and watch for the pattern of communication that
emerges, even paying attention to what gives obvious frustrations, etc.
Patterns will emerge that not only show what should be mimicked, but
also what things are universally frustrating and need to be solved. The
ones that appear from different groups are the basic patterns that
become your core.
At some point in development, you replace the human instructor with a
computer and continue usability testing to refine the system.
It is disappointing to me that you need to bash people when they attempt
to respond with constructive thoughts or ideas YOU asked for. If your
response to this is going to be another negative outburst from you, then
keep it to yourself. This discussion has already proven to me why you
should be ignored.
Otherwise, I hope that clarifies my initial response and I expect proper
credit will be given if any of what I presented ends up being a
published solution.
- Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Choate [mailto:ravage@einstein.ssz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: Rob Limbaugh
> Cc: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
> Subject: RE: Lego & BHC
>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Limbaugh wrote:
>
> > Blindfold yourself and have someone explain building • instructions for
> > a set you've never done. Don't worry about color (at this point).
> > Video tape the ordeal.
>
> Exactly what the hell do you think we're doing? Not one word
> of my post made it to a single neuron in your head. If it was
> easy somebody like you would have already done it.
>
> You disappoint me.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> -- --
>
> Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, &
> Game Consoles
> 512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com irc.open-forge.com
>
> Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
> 512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 irc.open-forge.org
>
> James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com
>
>
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
