Social Cardboard:

Pretotyping a Social Ethnodroid in the Wild

Janet Wiles, Peter Worthy, Kristyn Hensby, Marie Boden, Scott Heath, Paul Pounds,
Nikodem Rybak, Michael Smith, Jonathon Taufotofua, Jason Weigel,
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
j.wiles@uq.edu.au
Abstract—Pretotyping is a set of techniques, tools, and metrics
for gauging the interest in a product, prior to full-scale
development [1]. This late breaking report describes a
pretotyping case study of an ethnodroid – a robot that functions
as an ethnographer – intended to engage with young children and
record their learning progress. The central requirement for the
project is that the robot will be able to interact socially with
children aged 1-6 years in tablet-based tasks. We developed a
simple robot made of MDF (thick cardboard), added tablets for
the face and torso, and controlled a scripted interaction using
Wizard of Oz (WoZ). Children’s engagement with the robot was
tested in an early learning centre which provided a relatively
structured environment (“in the lab”) and at a science fair which
provided a relatively unconstrained setting (“in the wild”). The
rapid testing revealed distinct effects in the children’s attitudes
and behaviors in the two user contexts and provided insights into
form, sensors and analyses for the design process.
Keywords— pretotyping; child-friendly robot; ethnodroid;
Wizard of Oz; testing robots in the wild; OPAL robot; cHRI
I. INTRODUCTION
Pretotyping is an approach to product development
systematized by Alberto Savoia at Google to explain why
products fail in the market despite being well designed [1]. In
design terminology, “prototyping” covers all aspects of
development (see for example [2, 3]), but in engineering, its
meaning is narrower and entails correct functioning. Like
functional prototyping, pretotyping involves building a scaled
down version of a product, but it serves a different purpose,
and entails different methods. Functional prototyping addresses
questions related to building an envisioned product: “Can we
build it?”, “Will it work as expected?”, “How cheaply can we
build it?”, “How fast can we make it?” [1]. In contrast,
pretotyping is a light-weight process for addressing questions
about what product to build: “Would people be interested in
it?”, “Would they buy it if we build it?”, “Will they use it as
expected?”, “Will they continue to use it?” [1]. Pretotyping
short-cuts the expense of fully functional robot prototypes,
which inherently require working hardware and software and
entails substantial investment.
In this study, we used Savoia’s pretotyping questions to
organize insights gained from the different contexts of early
stage child-robot interaction tests. Pretotyping starts with
construction of a minimal system that need only enable pretend
interaction with the envisaged product. In our case, we needed
children interacting with a robot and hence functions that will
require effort for a fully functional prototype were delivered
using Wizard of Oz (WoZ) [4].
A. Ethnodroids: Robots as social actors and data collectors
Ethnodroid is a term we coined for research robots that
function as ethnographers. In social robotics they can provide
an embodied presence for research into social interaction with
a target group.
The OPAL project is part of a broad-ranging research
program to study technology and language. We are currently
developing a child-friendly ethnodroid called Opie which will
be used to evaluate social components of children’s
interactions with tablet-based learning tasks and games. The
key requirements for Opie are that it be both child-safe and
robust in relatively unstructured settings as well as socially
engaging. Prior experience has shown that commercially
available robots such as the humanoid Nao [5] are not robust
enough to withstand a preschool environment unsupervised
over long periods.
The inspiration for our design is the child-sized robot,
RUBI which functioned unattended for a month in a preschool
[6]. We aim to retain RUBI’s safety, robustness and
engagement, but don’t need its range of functional
components. Like RUBI, our robot aims to collect data on
interactions within and between children, however, we also
require external monitoring and aim to further develop an
associated portable lab-kit [7].
II. METHODOLOGY: IN THE LAB AND AT THE SCIENCE FAIR
Over a 6-week period, a range of robots were developed
(see [8] for further details). The general form is a semi
anthropomorphic robot with stylized elliptical head, a torso
constructed of sheets of MDF secured to a wooden frame, and
arms constructed from foam tubes ending in paddle-shaped
hands. The frame and equipment behind the robot are covered
by a black curtain. A tablet in the head shows a face, and one
in the torso is used for games (see Fig 1).
Studies were conducted by a facilitator interacting with the
robot and children1. Social responses in the 100-200
millisecond range (which we designate “social moments”) are
important for fluid human-human social interaction, and the
facilitator filled this role when the robot was offline or slow to
respond. The Wizard was operated by the facilitator in the lab,
and by an additional team member at the fair.
In the lab, the robot was positioned in the corner of a small
child-safe room. Participants were invited to interact with the
robot and a facilitator for 10 minutes. Testing was an ongoing
process that enabled many small refinements of the design. In
the first month, 6 children aged 1-6y participated in the lab.

This research was funded by the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language and APA scholarships to JWe and PW. We thank the OPAL team at
UQ, and the Temporal Dynamics of Learning Center and the RUBI project at UCSD for their input in the design process.
1
Ethical clearance: Title – “RUBI-Oz Design Pilot Test” clearance number: 15-PSYCH-PHD-42-JH

978-1-4673-8370-7/16/$31.00 © 2016 IEEE 531

 At the science fair, the robot was
positioned in a roped-off corner
of a large hall where young
children and their carers could
see the robot prior to
participating. In one day (5
hours of testing), 17 children
between 1-6y engaged with the
robot, in groups or alone (for
further details see [9][10]).
Fig 1. Opie at the fair.
III. EVALUATION
Savoia’s pretotyping questions were adapted to children’s
interactions with the robot, with reflection on the process
comparing and contrasting our expectations from prior
experience and the background literature. It should be noted
that our team comprised a wide range of disciplines (designers,
developmental psychologists, engineers, cognitive scientists, as
well as students). Hence, there was no “team” expectation,
rather a range of different experiences and questions.
Q1. Would children be interested in the robot? The tested
versions of the robot were only minimally viable. Few of our
research team expected that it would engage children’s interest
for a substantial period of time. To our surprise, most children
were strongly attracted to the robot in both settings. In the
structured lab environment, all children were assigned an
equivalent time to spend with the robot. At the fair, they
engaged for 6.2 – 23.1 minutes (M = 14.8 mins, SD = 3.7) and
most played through all four available games (M = 3.3 games,
SD = 0.8). The children were also tolerant of the robot’s
occasional malfunctions. We conclude that children are
sufficiently interested even in the robot’s pretotype form to
support its research functions.
Q2. Would they buy it if we build it? Savoia’s second question
extends to the carers and teachers who are the gatekeepers to
the children’s time and attention, and researchers who deploy
the robot as a context for interaction. Key considerations in the
studies concern ethics, data collection, and storage. Both
contexts involved voluntary visits with the robot, so it was not
surprising that all parents were positive about the research
aspects of the study. However, we were surprised by the
enthusiasm shown by parents, despite the robot’s limited
functionality and form. Testing in schools is planned to
observe a wider range of responses from parents and teachers.
Q3. Will they use it as expected? Complementary questions are
whether children will interact with the robot as expected and
whether researchers will use the ethnography functions of the
robot as expected. The testing showed some unexpected
behaviors between the children and the robot with respect to
the tablet, voice, eye contact and physical touch. We had
anticipated interest in the hands and had implanted touch
sensors. However, children in the lab rarely touched the robot
except for the tablet and the touch sensors were not triggered.
At the fair, participants touched the robot on the hands, arms
and torso, and some used the frame for support (these touches
were subsequently quantified through manual hand coding).
The cameras and microphones recorded the interactions
between participants and robot in a relatively constrained field
532
of view and showed that sensor placement needed adjustment.
The key finding for ethnography was the massive amounts of
data generated from every trial. First-hand experience of
coding touch data resulted in rapid innovation in sensors to
automate the touch analyses and visualizations to interpret the
data [10][11], and prompted the design of automated analysis
tools much earlier than planned (an insight recommended in
other studies [12]).
Q4. How long would it keep their attention? Savoia’s 4th
question concerns use over days to months. The study to date
has been limited to one-off interactions, and we have yet to
assess whether the robot will keep children’s attention over
multiple visits. Tests over multiple days in schools are planned
to address this question.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: PRETOTYPING AN ETHNODROID
The key finding of the pretotyping with children is just how
little a robot needs to be social and engaging: A cardboard
frame, foam arms and two tablets can be socially engaging,
given the right context and Wizard. The social interactions are
not just between child and robot, but are structured by the
settings, the parents, facilitator, WoZ, and the robot’s
autonomous communication. For its ethnodroid function, it
became obvious that the robot could generate more low level
sensor data than could be stored for analysis, and that
interpreting the data deluge had to be designed from the start.
Our study has extended Savoia’s questions from commercial
product development to a framework for designing a research
tool. The process proved useful in helping us to know what to
look for and identifying future needs for functionality,
demonstrating the value in extending the pretotyping concept
beyond its current setting in the commercial world.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Savoia. (2011, 28Nov15). Pretotype It, 2nd Ed. www.pretotyping.org
/uploads/1/4/0/9/14099067/pretotype_it_2nd_pretotype_edition-2.pdf
[2] W. Buxton, Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the
right design, Morgan Kaufmann, 2007.
[3] S. Houde and C. Hill, What do prototypes prototype? Handbook of
Human Computer Interaction, 2:367-381, 1997.
[4] N. Dahlbak, A. Johnsson and L. Ahrenberg, Wizard of Oz studies: Why
and how? Proc Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM, 193-200, 1993.
[5] D. Gouaillier, +8 authors, "Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid," in
Robotics and Automation. ICRA'09. IEEE Int Conf, 2009, pp. 769-774.
[6] M. Malmir, D. Forster, K. Youngstrom, L. Morrison, and J. Movellan,
"Home Alone: Social Robots for Digital Ethnography of Toddler
Behavior," in Proc IEEE Int Conf on Computer Vision Workshops 2013.
[7] N. Weibel, S. Rick, C. Emmenegger, S. Ashfaq, A. Calvitti, and Z.
Agha, "LAB-IN-A-BOX: semi-automatic tracking of activity in the
medical office," Personal & Ubiquitous Computing, 19:317-334, 2015.
[8] P. Worthy et al. "Children's Expectations and Strategies in Interacting
with a Wizard of Oz Robot" Proc 27th OzCHI 2015.
[9] OPAL project website www.itee.uq.edu.au/cis/opal
[10] K. Hensby et al, “Hand in Hand: Tools and techniques for understanding
children’s touch with a social robot”, ACM/IEEE HRI 2016, in press.
[11] K. Rogers et al, “Discovering Patterns of Touch: A Case Study for
Visualization-Driven Analysis in Human-Robot Interaction”,
ACM/IEEE Int Conf on Human-Robot Interaction 2016, in press.
[12] M. Evans, L. Kerlin, and C. Jay, "I Woke Up as a Newspaper:
Designing-in Interaction Analytics," in Proc 33rd ACM Conf Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2015, pp. 477-488.