PRE2017 3 Groep12: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Objectives == | == Objectives == | ||
=== Autonomous == | |||
* Scan environment. | * Scan environment. | ||
* Keeping the user into account. | * Keeping the user into account. | ||
* It can guide its user in a restricted area. | * It can guide its user in a restricted area. | ||
== Users == | == Users == |
Revision as of 11:34, 21 February 2018
Guiding Robot
Group members:
- Anne Kolmans
- Dylan ter Veen
- Jarno Brils
- Renée van Hijfte
- Thomas Wiepking
Subject
Globally there are about 285 visually impaired people, of which 39 million are totally blind. There is a shortage of guiding dogs to support the visually impaired persons. For instance in Korea alone, there are about 65 guiding dogs in total and about 45.000 visually impaired. Next to the shortage of guiding dogs, there are also other drawbacks. The training of guiding dogs for instance is difficult, while only 70% of the trained dogs will eventually be qualified to guide. Therefore, there is a need of innovative ways in supporting the visually impaired. We propose a guiding robot to help solve this problem.
Objectives
= Autonomous
- Scan environment.
- Keeping the user into account.
- It can guide its user in a restricted area.
Users
The robot we want to develop and are describing in this wiki is a robot to replace the guiding dogs. This robot will be used by the visually impaired the way they are now using guiding dogs. This means that they will use the guiding robot to walk inside, outside and to find there way to a store, bus stop etc. So the robot will not only have an impact on the visually impaired that is directly using the guiding robot it will also have an impact on the people in the direct surroundings of the visually impaired. For example when a visually impaired using the guiding robot wants to cross the street the drivers of the cars must really on the guiding robot to not cross the street if this isn’t possible. So this gives us the visually impaired who are the primary users, the people in the surrounding of a visually impaired that is guided by the guiding robot as the secondary users. And then we have the developers who are the tertiary users.
Users
The users and there different needs of the guiding robot
Visually impaired (primary users)
- Making it save to walk outside
- Making it easier to make a walk outside
- Navigate them to different destinations
the surrounding (secondary users)
- That the guiding robots detects cars, bicycles and pedestrians
- The guiding robot walks around obstacles
- The guiding robot walks where it's aloud to walks and is save to walk
developers(tertiary users)
- The guiding robot is better and more reliable then guiding dogs
- That it's easy to adapt the software
- That the guiding robot has as little maintenance as possible
State of the Art
Approach
- Research
- Which robot we will use to implement the software.
- Perceiving of the environment and recognizing obstacles.
- Obstacle avoidance.
- Adapting to the environment (tension on the rope).
- GPS navigation.
- Voice recognition.
Planning
Task | Who | Duration | When |
---|---|---|---|
Discuss initial project | All | 1h | Week 1 |
Research | All | 10h | Week 1 |
Subject (wiki) | Anne | 2h | Week 1 |
Users (wiki) | Renée | 2h | Week 1 |
SMART objectives (wiki) | Thomas | 3h | Week 1 |
Approach (wiki) | Dylan | 1h | Week 1 |
Deliverables (wiki) | Dylan | 1h | Week 1 |
Milestones (wiki) | Jarno | 1h | Week 1 |
Planning (wiki) | Jarno | 1h | Week 1 |
Discuss week 1 tasks | All | 2h | Week 1 |
State of the art (wiki) | |||
- Perceiving the environment | Dylan | 2h | Week 1 |
- Obstacle avoidance | Renée | 2h | Week 1 |
- GPS navigation and voice recognition | Thomas | 2h | Week 1 |
- Robotic design | Jarno | 2h | Week 1 |
- Guiding dogs | Anne | 2h | Week 1 |
Determine specific deliverables | All | 4h | Week 2 |
Add details to planning | All | 3h | Week 2 |
Meeting preparation | Thomas | 1h | Week 2 |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 2 |
Meeting preparation | 1h | Week 3 | |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 3 |
Meeting preparation | 1h | Week 4 | |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 4 |
Meeting preparation | 1h | Week 5 | |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 5 |
Meeting preparation | 1h | Week 6 | |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 6 |
Meeting preparation | 1h | Week 7 | |
Meeting | All | 1h | Week 7 |
Presentation preparation | All | 20h | Week 8 |
Presentation | All | 1h | Week 8 |
Milestones
During this project, the following milestones have been determined. They may be expanded once we have a better understanding of how we are going to tackle the project. Especially the decision on whether to use an existing robot or creating a robot will heavily influence these milestones and their deadlines. Note also that the planning also lacks details, which will be filled in in week 2.
Milestone | Deadline |
---|---|
Research is complete | Week 1 |
Hardware is available (either full robot or necessary parts) | Week 3 |
Robot can scan the environment | Week 5 |
Robot can keep the user in mind | Week 6 |
Robot is fully autonomous | Week 6 |
Robot can guide the user in a restricted area | Week 8 |
Deliverables
prototype