Advertisement

Programming a Robotic Toy with a Block Coding Application: A Usability Study with Non-programmer Adults

  • Muhammet Ramoğlu
  • Çağlar Genç
  • Kerem Rızvanoğlu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10288)

Abstract

Recently, sophisticated robotic toys have commercially emerged into our lives. Apart from being only a toy, some of these smart devices are programmable for accomplishing commands given by the end-user. However, usually, end-users are not experts in robotics or programming. In order to explore the usability issues related to the non-programmers’ experience of controlling the robotic toys, we conducted a user study with non-programmers (N = 9) by using Sphero (a robotic toy) and tested its mobile application, called SPRK Lightning Lab for Sphero, which adopted visual programming language with a block-based coding interface. Our procedure consisted of a pre-test and a semi-structured post-test interview as well as an exploring session for the participants and three tasks with a short semi-structured interview at the end of each task. Our findings, which highlighted the usability issues of SPRK Lightning Lab for Sphero application, contribute to the field by providing design suggestions on using a digital medium and a tangible device together, the usability issues of block coding by non-programmers and learnability in a robotic toy application.

Keywords

Robotic toys Visual programming Block coding Usability test Mobile application 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to İdil Bostan and Tülin Bozkurt Hazar for proofreading.

References

  1. 1.
    Klassner, F., Anderson, S.D.: LEGO mindstorms: not just for K-12 anymore. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 10, 12–18 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramírez-benavides, K., López, G., Guerrero, L.A.: A mobile application that allows children in the early childhood to program robots. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2015 (2016). Article ID: 1714350Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diprose, J.P., MacDonald, B.A., Hosking, J.G.: Ruru: a spatial and interactive visual programming language for novice robot programming. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing VL/HCC 2011, pp. 25–32 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weintrop, D., Wilensky, U.: To block or not to block? That is the question. J. Educ. Res. 95(4), 196–202 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dill, K., Freeman, B., Frazier, S.: Mars game: creating and evaluating an engaging educational game. In: Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), pp. 1–14 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pane, J.F.: A programming system for children that is designed for usability. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., Bers, M.U.: Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Comput. Sch. 33, 169–186 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zelazo, P., Carter, A., Reznick, J.S., Frye, D.: Early development of executive function. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1(2), 198–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, K.T.H., Sullivan, A., Bers, M.U.: Collaboration by design: using robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Comput. Sch. 30, 271–281 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Begel, A.: LogoBlocks: a graphical programming language for interacting with the world. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, MIT, Boston, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bau, D., Bau, D.A., Pickens, C.S., Dawson, M.: Pencil code: block code for a text world. In: IDC, pp. 445–448 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., Kafai, Y.: Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM. 52, 60–67 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheung, J.C.Y., Ngai, G., Chan, S.C.F., Lau, W.W.Y.: Filling the gap in programming instruction: a text-enhanced graphical programming environment for junior high students. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 276–280 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    García-peñalvo, F.J., Rees, A.M., Hughes, J., Vermeersch, J.: A survey of resources for introducing coding into schools. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim, S.H., Jeon, J.W.: Programming LEGO mindstorms NXT with visual programming Seung. In: International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, Seoul, Korea, pp. 2468–2472 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ng, G., Chow, M., de Lima Salgado, A.: Toys and mobile applications: current trends and related privacy issues. In: Hung, P.C.K. (ed.) Mobile Services for Toy Computing, pp. 51–76. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ketola, P., Roto, V.: Exploring user experience measurement needs. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM), Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 23–26 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shackel, B., Richardson, S.J.: Usability—Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elseiver, Englewood Cliffs (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jordan, P.W.: An Introduction to Usability. CRC Press, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hung, J.: Usability and learnability improvements for the TaleBlazer game editor. Dissertation, Institute of Technolog, Massachusetts (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J., Landauer, T.K.: A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: ACM INTERCHI 1993, pp. 206–213 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen, J.: How many test users in a usability study? (2012). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/. Accessed 8 Feb 2017
  24. 24.
    Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B., Grobe, S.J.: A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qual. Health Res. 3, 430–441 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189, 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammet Ramoğlu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Çağlar Genç
    • 3
  • Kerem Rızvanoğlu
    • 4
  1. 1.Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Industrial Product Design DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Arçelik A.Ş., Industrial Design DirectorateIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Koç University – Arçelik Research Center for Creative Industries (KUAR)IstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Faculty of CommunicationGalatasaray UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations