For my class ME 213 we had to use the fprintf function to display some information. The teacher provided some notes on how to do it but they were all very confusing so I decided to do some searching online to see if I could understand it better. Most of the websites weren't very helpful. Then I went to YouTube to see if there were some instructional videos, and there were but again they weren't very good. So for the instructional video assignment I decided it would be a good idea to help others out so they don't have to go searching for this information when they get stuck.
March 5, 2016
March 4, 2016
Usability
Many times in our lives we will have to learn how to do something new. We generally learn by following direction whether they be written, oral, face-to-face, or video. We can usually tell when the instructions are good, because we can finish our task without any trouble. This is similar to the way we can tell if a website is good after we've tried to use it. This is called usability. We want our instructions or websites to have high usability. In my case I will be testing the usability of a script for an instructional video that will be made soon.
Usability is usually checked through usability tests or surveys, which ask a series of question about the material. It may seem obvious, but the question choice plays a very large part its ability to provide useful information about the subject. The questions should guide the user's feedback into something meaningful for the creator that can be used for improvement. I drew inspiration for my questions from this website that had some examples. The three main questions I chose for the usability test because they were the ones most fitting to my script wereI:
- What was your first impression after reading the script?
- Were you able to understand where the new pieces of the example were coming from? If not, which parts and why?
- What would you change about the script specifically?
Normally it would be best to perform a usability test on my target audience of people that had the baseline knowledge necessary for understanding my script, however since we conducted the tests in class only some of the testers understood what was happening in my script. That being said, I was still able to gather some useful feedback for making my video.
The test I conducted was on my script which outlined the basics of the fprintf function in MatLab, a programming language designed primarily for large calculations. It can be confusing for many of the engineers who take the class because they don't usually have any programming experience. I want be able to show my viewers how to use the function step-by-step, while pointing out its interesting features. The test was supposed to be able to show me how to do that more effectively.
The script that was reviewed was mostly the final draft, aside from alterations that came from the usability test. It was reviewed by three classmates during class time. Two of the testers had taken MatLab; the other had heard of it but had no experience with it. The testers were first asked to look at a consent form to understand what was being asked of them, and then they were told to read through the script editing it as they read through it with comments. Next they were asked five questions: the three listed above, one asking for any recommendations for the video, and the last one was a confidence test. It asked the tester if they felt they could use the function along with some given information to create a desired result by referencing the script.
The result I gathered were quite helpful. The tester that had no experience with MatLab said that he felt that the script seemed like a good set of instructions, but since he had no prior knowledge, he was still confused as to how everything worked. This was to be expected though, and had little impact on revising the script for the video. The first of the two testers that had used MatLab mentioned he had struggled some while in the class for MatLab and that was showing here. He said that to him reading MatLab instructions is always confusing, but felt that I had done it well enough that he could mostly follow them. He also said that video format will be much better for my instructions. His final comment was that I should provide a better introduction for the function, and be more specific about when someone would use it. The last tester also had experience with the program. He said that he found the script very easy to follow, but that again video would be much better for these kind of instructions.
From the testers feedback, I have gathered three main things. The first is that video is going to be the best way to share my instructions, but I have to make sure that I show everything step-by-step because MatLab can be confusing. The second is that I have to provide a better explanation of what the function I am discussing can be used for so that people stay and finish the video. The last thing is that my script is a good baseline for making the video, though it will need minor alterations as previously mentioned.
The result I gathered were quite helpful. The tester that had no experience with MatLab said that he felt that the script seemed like a good set of instructions, but since he had no prior knowledge, he was still confused as to how everything worked. This was to be expected though, and had little impact on revising the script for the video. The first of the two testers that had used MatLab mentioned he had struggled some while in the class for MatLab and that was showing here. He said that to him reading MatLab instructions is always confusing, but felt that I had done it well enough that he could mostly follow them. He also said that video format will be much better for my instructions. His final comment was that I should provide a better introduction for the function, and be more specific about when someone would use it. The last tester also had experience with the program. He said that he found the script very easy to follow, but that again video would be much better for these kind of instructions.
From the testers feedback, I have gathered three main things. The first is that video is going to be the best way to share my instructions, but I have to make sure that I show everything step-by-step because MatLab can be confusing. The second is that I have to provide a better explanation of what the function I am discussing can be used for so that people stay and finish the video. The last thing is that my script is a good baseline for making the video, though it will need minor alterations as previously mentioned.
March 3, 2016
Innovation Review
The mechanical engineering field is largely designing or improving designs of machines. In order to do that the engineers have to do a lot of calculations to see if designs are viable or actually improvements over the older version. They can use 3D modeling programs on the computer to create the objects and then run simulations on those generated objects. This can be a bit cumbersome as computer screens are 2D and the engineer is trying to work with 3D pieces. That is why the onset of virtual and augmented reality devices is so exciting for engineers.
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are quite similar, with the main difference being that VR immerses the user in an artificial 3D word while AR overlays its content onto and interacts with the real world. Both however could be used to interact with artificial 3D objects in a real space. This would be the main advantage for engineers: being able to see and "touch" the items that are being worked with. This is a large step up from having to do these things in 2D or creating a new real world prototype every time a small change is made. The reason all of this is relevant is that there will be roughly a dozen VR and AR hardware launches in the next year.
2016 will really be the start of consumer level reality devices. To compare all of the different devices coming out , we have to create some sort of frame work to check all of the devices against. The first criteria should be price of the device, because as we all know price will affect which companies will be able to use it in their businesses. The second thing we look at should be the capabilities in terms of specifications. Next we can examine the overall design and appeal of the hardware. Lastly we check the reputability of the company.
All of these criteria can looked into now before any of the products launch. Instead of trying to look at all of these characteristics for each piece of hardware that will be available this year, for purpose of this blog I am going to look at the most popular in the respective reality types. The first representing VR, Oculus Rift, is launching on March 28th. The second representing AR, Microsoft HoloLens, is launching March 30th. In terms of price, Rift is $600 and HoloLens is $3,000. In terms of specifications those can be found on this website for Oculus Rift and this site for Microsoft HoloLens. These specs are hard to compare since they are performing very different tasks for the most part, however the main difference seems to be Hololens has a built in computer while Rift gets fed information from a nearby users computer and is therefore limited by it. Next we will look at the styles. The Rift has a large black oval for an eye piece, looking like swimming goggles that have been combined with small headphones. It also has a strap that goes over the around the head and over its crest. The HoloLens has slightly tinted eye pieces and goes all the way around the head. Lastly both companies are reputable. Though Oculus is only 4 years old, they have garnered a lot of attention and were bought for $2 billion by Facebook. Microsoft has been around since 1975 and has been one of the main faces of the computing industry.
In terms of which of these devices would be better for using in the engineering field, I can't say. It will be interesting to see in the next few months how companies decided to incorporate these. They both have their obvious pros and cons. But the obvious one both have right now is the availability of compatible programs for doing engineering simulations and modeling. In the near future, we should be able to draw new criteria from our experiences with the technology to determine what characteristics we should be looking for in our virtual and augmented reality hardware.
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are quite similar, with the main difference being that VR immerses the user in an artificial 3D word while AR overlays its content onto and interacts with the real world. Both however could be used to interact with artificial 3D objects in a real space. This would be the main advantage for engineers: being able to see and "touch" the items that are being worked with. This is a large step up from having to do these things in 2D or creating a new real world prototype every time a small change is made. The reason all of this is relevant is that there will be roughly a dozen VR and AR hardware launches in the next year.
2016 will really be the start of consumer level reality devices. To compare all of the different devices coming out , we have to create some sort of frame work to check all of the devices against. The first criteria should be price of the device, because as we all know price will affect which companies will be able to use it in their businesses. The second thing we look at should be the capabilities in terms of specifications. Next we can examine the overall design and appeal of the hardware. Lastly we check the reputability of the company.
 |
| Microsoft HoloLens |
 |
| Oculus Rift |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)