1. PerceptOR Robotics Project Perception for Offroad Robotics: Operator Control Station (OCS) OCS Team: Cheryl Platz Michael Kelleher Evan Leonard Cooper Blake Sri Remala May 8, 2002 HCI Undergraduate Project Course Final Presentation Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

2. Background Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

3. What is PerceptOR? Autonomous robot intended for off-road exploration and information retrieval Steer & shift Actuators Stereo Cameras Electrical Box (Both Sides) Batteries Aluminum Frame Throttle & Brake Actuators (Other Side) Inverter GPS &Ethernet Antennas Ladar Units PTU Steel Frame Unconventional Process : A project with a very small user base Used common sense, contextual inquiry, and outside research. User testing is crucial Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

4. Our Goals Present information about the world and the robot Allow immediate intervention Minimize bandwidth and cognitive load Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

5. Old Interface Current system is based on raw data Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

6. Initial Design Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

7. Focus In the field Learning the simulator Trouble discovery AG Project/Autonomous Tractor Hyperion Project (Autonomous Sun Synchronous Robot) Contextual Inquiry Process Subject Primary Robot operator System engineers Project Researcher Additional feedback from military field tests in Virginia (late February) Domain research in the areas of automobile,ship, and airplane navigation systems as well as other autonomous robotic systems Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

8. Tasks 1.Monitoring – 90% of the time 2.Analysis – to get more information 3.Intervention – avoid if at all possible Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

9. How do we organize data? Vehicle state vs. Navigation State (CI- 2) Saliency of information Artificial horizon Importance of images, 2D Map (CI 1,5) Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

10. First Monitoring Wireframe

11. Internal/Nav State Screens

12. Feedback Global Stop/Start More attention to intervention Potential Moding Issues Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

13. Full Screen 1 st Round Monitoring

14. Prototype Presentation Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

15. User Tests Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions User Test Title Slide

16. User Tests 2 Rounds CMU students from technical majors and Richard 1 st round Paper Prototype Little Training Clarify system: organization & labeling 5 Scenarios 2 nd round Director/Flash Simulation Additional Training Expert Use and Flow & Interaction issues 2 Scenarios Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

17. Trio of 1 st Test Wireframes

18. Labeling –Main buttons not perceived as buttons at all “I want to click on [vehicle state] as a button but I’m not sure it will do anything.” –Drive Blind - “should I drive blind?” (SDR-1) “I guess it shuts off communications” (EL-2) Round 1 Findings Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions Round 1 Findings: Labeling

19. Moding & Information Loss –Wanted direct control from first screen –Wanted information back from the Monitoring screen –Users got lost between screens. “I’m unaware what view this is” Round 1 Findings Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions Round 1 Findings: Moding

20. Round 2 Full Screen Monitoring

21. Round 2 Findings Stop/Start Feedback Resolution adjustment on images Click & Drag was awkward (Mission Map) History: Image replay, 2D map coloring - “I’ve gone all this way, but I’ve got nothing to show for it.” (EAL-3) More training needed on how the robot works (e.g. Tilt Gauge) Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

22. Looking Ahead: Conclusions and Design Ideas Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions Conclusions Title Slide

23. Future Ideas Sound Effects –Constant “heartbeat” and pitch shifting effects based on robot status History View Clarify Difference between what the Robot thinks it perceives and the real world Map Editing Details (e.g. waypoint reordering) Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

24. Conclusions We can remove the tedium from robot monitoring. Our user test subjects enjoyed themselves! For the most part, our system provides the tools needed to solve complex robot problems. User’s can diagnose problems quickly Some training with the robot will be needed, but that is beyond the scope of the OCS project. Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

25. Questions? Background Design Prototype User Tests Conclusions

26. 2D Map Moding

27. Drive Blind

28. Mission Map

29. Internal State

30. Nav State