Arduino Car
See the full project on GitHub
2023
Prototype car that can follow you as you walk, made with an Arduino and various sensors. It was intended to carry small items for a person while they jog.
Background and Context
The development of this prototype was driven by a user-centred design approach, starting with an empathetic understanding of user needs and challenges. Through individual ideation and group discussions, we identified a common user problem: the burden of carrying items while walking or jogging. Recognising the potential of Arduino and various sensors, we aimed to create a solution that could alleviate this problem.
Informed by our research on existing Arduino projects and technology limitations, we conceptualised a mobile storage device that could autonomously follow users and provide a secure space for their belongings. The prototype consists of a chassis with two wheels, a motor, and a mounted box for storing personal items. To enable tracking and navigation, we incorporated an ultrasonic sensor to measure the distance between the prototype and the user, as well as an infrared sensor to detect the user's temperature.
This is so the car can distinguish walls/objects from actual people (identified by a higher temperature). The objective of the prototype is to offer a convenient and hands-free storage solution that seamlessly adapts to users' movements. To validate the effectiveness and usability of the prototype, we conducted a user study involving participants from the University of Technology Sydney.
By observing and gathering feedback from participants, we sought to understand how well the prototype addresses the identified user problem and assess its performance in terms of tracking accuracy, interaction, and overall user experience. By contextualising the prototype within the broader field of user experience design and leveraging our understanding of user needs and existing technology, we aim to contribute to the advancement of mobile storage solutions and enhance users' daily experiences while walking or jogging.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this user study draws upon concepts and principles from the fields of user experience design, human-computer interaction, and product design. Key theoretical references include 'Getting Started with Arduino' by Massimo Banzi, 'The Design of Everyday Things' by Donald Norman, 'Making Things Talk' by Tom Igoe, and 'Emotional Design' by Donald Norman.
Banzi's 'Getting Started with Arduino' provides a foundational understanding of Arduino technology and programming and serves as a technical guide for developing the prototype and leveraging the Arduino platform to implement functionality and control various components.
Norman's 'The Design of Everyday Things' offers insights into the principles of usability, affordances, and signifiers in product design. It emphasises the importance of creating intuitive and user-centred designs that align with users' mental models and expectations. This resource informs our approach to designing the prototype's interaction elements and overall user experience.
In 'Making Things Talk' by Igoe, the focus is on creating interactive projects that communicate and respond to human inputs. This resource provides valuable guidance on integrating sensors and actuators, enabling the prototype to perceive and interact with its environment. It helps shape the selection and implementation of the ultrasonic sensor, infrared sensor, and other components that facilitate user tracking and obstacle avoidance.
Norman's 'Emotional Design' explores the emotional aspects of product design and the impact of design on users' affective experiences. This resource helps us understand the role of aesthetics, form, and emotional appeal in creating engaging and enjoyable interactions. It guides us in considering the emotional response of users to the prototype and how it can be enhanced through design choices.
By integrating these insights, the theoretical framework provides a foundation for assessing the prototype's adherence to design principles, understanding user interactions and perceptions, and deriving recommendations for iterative improvements.
Design and Procedure for Conducting the Observational Study
The observational study will use a mixed-methods approach, using quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the robot's effectiveness and usability. The location of the study will be the university campus on level 2 of building 2, as there are wide spaces with flat ground which are both ideal for testing the cars performance, as the wheels struggle on rough/sloping surfaces and the car needs plenty of space so we can test its search and follow actions accurately.
Everything will be recorded with a smartphone, with the participants’ consent to film, and then the video will be stored with the number of the participant, e.g., participant 1. Every session takes about 15 minutes, and we will have four participants, so that makes up 60 minutes. We will ask our participants to guide the robot near obstacles to test if it gets distracted, and if they could place their personal belongings in the storage box to test movement and storage.
1. Testing the ultrasonic sensor and infrared sensor: Participants will be asked to test the ultrasonic sensor and infrared sensor by standing at various distances from the robot, and we will check the serial monitor to observe how each sensor responds at various distances and record the values. The values will be recorded at distances of 10 centimetres, 30 centimetres, 60centimeters, 1 meter and 2 meters (using a tape measure). This will help evaluate the accuracy and sensitivity of the sensor and identify any potential issues.
2. Testing the car behaviour, DC motors and wheels: Participants will be asked to test the movement of the robot by navigating it through the campus grounds and then near some obstacles (tables/chairs and walls). They will be given limited instructions and only told that it is meant to follow them. This will help us evaluate the responsiveness and reliability of the motors/wheels and the coded car behaviour to identify any potential issues.
3. Additionally, qualitative and quantitative data will be obtained by giving the participant an interview questionnaire after testing (see raw data/transcripts). This is to understand if the car was successful in solving the user's problem, and their opinions on potential improvements.
Raw Data/Transcripts
Infrared Values (°C) based on the distance from the sensor to the person
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10cm | 35.27°C | 35.87°C | 34.98°C | 35.54°C |
| 30cm | 34.78°C | 34.13°C | 33.43°C | 34.32°C |
| 60cm | 26.25°C | 28.84°C | 23.30°C | 25.86°C |
| 1m | 22.78°C | 21.24°C | 20.13°C | 22.32°C |
| 2m | 21.13°C | 20.92°C | 19.45°C | 21.45°C |
Ultrasonic Values (cm) based on the distance from the sensor to the person
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10cm | 10.82cm | 10.23cm | 10.13cm | 10.34cm |
| 30cm | 30cm | 29cm | 30cm | 30cm |
| 60cm | 60cm | 60cm | 60cm | 60cm |
| 1m | 101cm | 100cm | 100cm | 99cm |
| 2m | 205cm | 202cm | 200cm | 203cm |
User ratings of the prototype
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed | 3/10 | 6/10 | 4/10 | 3/10 | 4/10 |
| Application | 6/10 | 6/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 5.75/10 |
| Aesthetic | 5/10 | 7/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 5.5/10 |
Questionnaire
1.Did you understand how to interact with the car?
2. Can you provide some specific features of the car (physical or behavioural) that gave you an idea of how it worked?
3. Can you describe any visual or auditory cues that indicated how you could interact with the car?
4. Were you able to adequately store your items in the car? Is there anything you would not put in the car?
5. Do you think the car's ability to follow you could be improved? Were there any specific moments where it failed to do so?
6. Do you think the maintained gap between the product and user should be increased/decreased? Why? Why not?
7. How did you feel whilst testing the car? What features do you think prompted these feelings, and at what part of the experience were they?
8. Were there any features that you particularly enjoyed or disliked about the car? What were they?
9. Rate the speed at which the product goes from 1 to 10, 10 being too fast and 1 being too slow, and 5 being optimal. Explain your reasoning:
10. How likely would you be to use the product whilst walking on a scale from 1 to 10?
11. Rate how aesthetically pleasing the product is from 1 to 10. Explain your reasoning
12. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on how we could improve the car?