Smart Bathroom Lab Analysis Tool
The Smart Bathroom Analysis Tool provides a system solution for occupational therapists in Georgia Tech Smart bathroom lab to make their process of scoring and transcribing touch sensing data more efficient.
2023 Fall - UIUX, Research, System Design
Introduction
Researchers, at the Smart Bathroom project at Georgia Tech Aware Home, are experiencing difficulty with the amount of technical inconveniences that are experiencing when proceeding with the data collecting process. So, this project aims to investigate and develop a solution to make the process of scoring and transcribing touch sensing data more accessible and user-friendly for occupational therapists and future clients of the Smart Bathroom.
Background
What is smart bathroom?
The smart toilet and bath tub is the assistive technology that measures forces during usage of the toilet and bathtub through loaded cells embedded in the handlebar, toilet seat, and surrounding floor.
The Smart Bathroom lab project is part of the Georgia tech aware home project to explores the use of technologies in the bathroom to assist older adults with independent living in the home. The project is lead by principal investigators Brian Jones and occupation therapist Susan Lee.
Currently, the smart bathroom lab is still in the early stage of data collecting.
For years, occupational therapists have traditionally assessed bathroom safety solely through manual methods, such as observation, measuring tape, and using laptops or phones to take photos and record data.
The current practice among occupational therapists also involves the use of adjustable grab bars, which is not a novel concept introduced by the Smart Bathroom Lab. They essentially conducts regular patient sessions with a camera recording and later analyzes the participants’ behavioral data from the video recording with GRAs.
User Group & Stakeholders
Primary Users: occupational therapists
They are on the experiment working and transcribing the data received from the Aware Home. Then analyze the participant behavior's data and rate the performance.
For the future, clients and patients who uses the toilet will also benefit from having a coherent interface that translates the data from the toilet. Having the literacy in understanding the data will allow quick analysis on the the health level and motor skills of the user.
Research
During this phase, our team did 4 methods to understand the project better, we did an contextual interview, an on site observation, a document tear down and a competitor analysis.
1. Contextual Interview
Why use this method?
-
Overall process of their task from their perspectives.
-
More natural and more realistic that the interview is not interfering
-
Able to transcribe and code the transcript later
-
Able to interact with the user directly and find their pain points that other methods need to clarify.
-
In-depth insight
-
Natural environment
Limits?
-
there is not a set of questions of a guideline to follow
-
data resulted from the contextual interview is subject-focused, and interpreting these data require validation from other methods
-
interviewee’s behavior may be unnatural due to the presence of the interviewer
Details & Analysis
Procedure:
-
contacted them to schedule a time for contextual interviews
-
did the interview and take notes
-
coding interviews and transfer them to sticky notes
-
make an affinity map for analysis
Analysis:
-
The result of the three contextual interviews are split into two sections: discussion of the data-taking process with participants (pre-trial & in-trial), by Susan; discussion of data-analyzing process by GRAs.
-
The two GRAs’ analysis process are similar, but had some different analysis habits
Why use this method?
2. Onsite Observation
Data presentation: camera perspectives & sensor locations
-
experience a walkthrough as an participant of how the experiment is conducted
-
also see first hand how data is being gathered
-
it was the easiest and most efficient way to understand what the overall project is about
Limits?
-
only shows one part of the overall process
-
only did a quick, simplified version of how a trial would have went
Problems we found:
-
the variety of windows opened to see the different parts of the toilet sensors is in efficient
-
syncing up the videos was a tedious process
-
all the video switches had to be turned on and off
-
if it wasn’t checked beforehand, trial videos can have issues
3. Document Tear Down
Limits?
-
Interpretation of documents and videos may be subjective.
-
Documents are only part of working process, they only capture all aspects of occupational therapy or lab processes.
-
Relies on historical documents, currently what we are seeing is all documents that used for phase 1; might not capture real-time aspects of observations.
Why use this method?
-
In-depth Analysis: Allows for a detailed examination of existing documents and videos.
-
Contextual Understanding: Provides insights into the context and nuances of observational data.
-
Identifying Pain Points: Helps identify inefficiencies and limitations in the current documentation processes.
Analysis
4. Competitor Analysis
Why use this method?
-
provide a comprehensive understanding of the competitive landscape in the market
-
offering insights into competitors' strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and market positioning
-
facilitating benchmarking, risk mitigation, and resource allocation.
Limits?
-
subjectivity in data interpretatio
-
potential for data biases: a lot of them need to purchase and we are analysis based on their public information
User & Design Needs
Persona
The persona we created is based on the routine life of an occupational therapist. We identified their personality, ability to adapt to technology, and behavioral traits to depict a typical portrait of our users.
User journey
We have created an extensive user journey map because analyzing even a single trial takes a significant amount of time for therapists. The top part of the map illustrates the users' workflow, while the bottom section displays their emotions, indicating the difficulty they experience at each step.
Expectation list
We made a list of expectations for our project. At the bottom, there are 'Hidden Expectations' - features users expect but didn't mention. In the middle, there are 'Functional Expectations' - features users asked for regarding how the product works. At the top, there are 'Interface/Layout Expectations' - features users want related to the design and layout.
Design Process
Our prototype design process begins with ideation, followed by sketches, a sketch feedback session, wireframe creation, a wireframe feedback session, and finally, the construction of the prototype.
Interview with 2 RAs
Concepts Selecting
Procedure:
For concept narrowing down, our group initially generated and drew three storyboards for three distinct concepts. We then conducted user interviews with the two research assistants in the lab and ultimately decided on one direction, which we refer to as an 'Integrated System'.
Wire Frame Sketch
Keeping the design requirements in mind, we developed our wireframe. Subsequently, we held a wireframe feedback session with our target users, from which we derived four key requirements for our prototype: ensuring coverage of all missing information and adding necessary features, delving into the details of page interactions, integrating actual text and data to achieve high fidelity, and addressing accessibility issues.
Final Prototype
our final prototype encompasses six functionalities: login, creating new participants, video recording, video labeling, trial assessment, and score comparison.
1. Log In & New Participant
The login function allows users to easily log in using autofill. Additionally, it enables access to and storage of all project information in cloud storage.
Creating a new participant, allows users to add a new participant by filling out a form with all the necessary details for each individual.
2. Video Recording
The video recording function enables users to record videos for each participant during testing. All videos are synchronized, ensuring that users don't have to worry about discrepancies in video timings.
3. Video Labeling
The video labeling function enables users to view all four videos simultaneously from different angles. Additionally, it features a master timeline for controlling various elements such as buttons and keyframe draggers.
4. Trial Assessment and Scoring
The trial assessment function allows users to choose different camera views for various performance tasks and utilize scoring metrics to easily click on scores, eliminating the need to manually type in numbers.
5. Time/Score comparison
The final function, comparison, enables users to compare their timestamps and scores. If the compared scores are identical, the system will automatically generate the final score to minimize the need for human intervention.
Final Evaluation
After developing our prototype, we conducted heuristic evaluations with three experts and carried out moderated user testing with four users.
Heuristic evaluation
We conducted heuristic evaluations with 3 experts knowledgable about design, giving them 7 heuristics from the Nielsen Norman Group to examine.
Roles:
One facilitator, one notetaker
Procedure:
Experts were asked to complete 2 tasks with our prototype:
-
You are a GRA working for the Smart Bathroom lab. Add a new participant to the system and record videos for 2 participant trials. Go back to the home participant page once you are done.
-
Once you are back on the home participant page, you notice the data assessment for participant 8 is still in-progress. Finish the assessment by 1) time-stamping the unfinished task, 2) complete the behavior scoring, and 3) compare your scores with another grader. Go back to the home participant page once you are done.
Afterwards, experts were asked to give feedback and fill out the 7 heuristics, which are shown on the right.
Data presentation
We consolidated feedback from all three experts into a single table for each heuristic. The majority of suggestions pertained to minor details, like font color and button placement, rather than the overall user flow. This suggests that there are no significant issues with the current system. However, improvements can be made in enhancing color contrast and clearly labeling buttons to reduce confusion.
Moderated user testing
We carried out moderated user testing with a total of four users, assigning them two tasks to complete during the session.
Roles:
One facilitator, one notetaker
Procedure:
Task 1: As a GRA in the Smart Bathroom lab, add a new participant to the system and record videos for two participant trials. Return to the home participant page upon completion.
Task 2: Back on the home participant page, you notice that the data assessment for participant 8 is still in progress. Complete the assessment by: 1) time-stamping the unfinished task, 2) completing the behavior scoring, and 3) comparing your scores with another grader. Return to the home participant page when finished.
After each task, we asked them some performance based questions and let them fill out the NASA Task Load Index form to get quantitative feedback about our product.
Data presentation
The two charts displayed here illustrate the results of the task performance metrics and a combined NASA Task Load Index. We calculated the average values for each metric to gain a better understanding of our prototype's performance.
IF NEXT...
We intend to undergo two additional rounds of design, testing, and analysis, following the agile workflow. This is aimed at refining the entire process and uncovering possibilities for future features before officially transforming the prototype into a fully functional product.
Once it hits the market, we plan to keep refining and expanding it as the smart bathroom lab continues to develop. The goal is to ensure the product always stays in sync with users' needs. Thank you!
