The significant risks, mitigations, and contingency plans are the same as last week.
There have been changes to the existing design of the system specifically to the PCB and chess board. We decided to test different types of sensors along with different types of board materials. For testing one type of sensor the cost was approximately $13, now that we are testing two types it resulted in additional $13. We believe these costs are necessary as they directly impact a user requirement measurement (98% accuracy from sensors). Testing on a smaller scale also reduces the risk of producing a full PCB that does not meet this requirement, which would be more expensive to redesign and replace.
In the schedule (software development) we had to push back the task: implement camera capture + board calibration due to us not ordering the camera yet. We have not yet ordered the camera because we wanted to confirm the Nvidia Jetson availability first before ordering a camera. We received the Jetson on Thursday so we will be ordering the camera next week. To minimize offset in the schedule, we determined that working ahead on software development such as implementing digital board state + python-chess rules, move logging, time stamps. This way, by the time we have our camera setup, we can integrate it more easily with the software aspect.
We were recently approved and received an Nvidia Jetson Orin Nano board which will be our main computing platform for computer vision processing
A was written by Justin, B was written by Kevin and C was written by Sabah.
Part A: … with respect to considerations of public health, safety or welfare. Note: The term ‘health’ refers to a state of well-being of people in both a physiological and psychological sense. ‘Safety’ is the absence of hazards and/or physical harm to persons. The term ‘welfare’ relates to the provision of the basic needs of people.
Our project seeks to positively impact the physical chess playing experience for everyone on the spectrum of the visually impaired. This type of user has specific needs for their safety that the rest of the population do not. Specifically, our project involves active moving of chess pieces in a system with fragile electric components. To adhere to the safety needs of the visually impaired, we need to have all components external to the chess board very secured to the table in order to avoid failure of components and avoid injury from accidentally bumping into them. The chessboard and PCB itself will be secured to the table (perhaps with suction cups) to avoid being accidentally pushed. And external power cables will need to be secure to avoid anyone from tripping over them. With respect to physiological harm, as long as the game will be fair, even in the situation of non-visually impaired playing against someone visually impaired, there will be no possibility of cheating or foul play. Additionally, as long as the chess interface helps bring some of the automated features of online chess to the physical board, I foresee there being no physiological harm as opposed to the existing solution.
Part B: … with consideration of social factors. Social factors relate to extended social groups having distinctive cultural, social, political, and/or economic organizations. They have importance to how people relate to each other and organize around social interests.
One of the key factors that were considered when designing our project was social accessibility and inclusion. Our group noticed that traditional chess can often create barriers especially when they need to rely heavily on visual information from the board. By adding features such as a braille incorporated physical chessboard with digital features such as move detection, move validation, and board state tracking, we believe that this would reduce barriers between visually impaired and sighted players. Overall, this would lead to a more inclusive playing environment that does not require either player to use a completely separate interface. On top of this, we also considered the importance of independence and equal participation. Rather than having to depend on another person to identify pieces and track moves, the system we set up is intended to provide this information automatically to provide accessible feedback. This way, visually impaired players and/or sighted players can both participate more independently in casual games without having to have someone looking over their shoulder to help them. At the same time, we realized that the system should not be providing an unfair advantage to one player so all assistance and game information is designed so that it is consistent for both players. Overall, the goal for this project was to make physical chess more accessible while also preserving the valuable social interaction aspect.
Part C: … with consideration of economic factors. Economic factors are those relating to the system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
The smart chessboard we are making for visually impaired users meets the need for a board that helps them learn chess, since many cannot visually access digital resources. Although, we also need to consider the economic factors surrounding this product, including production, distribution, and consumption. On the production side, the board requires more materials and labor than a standard chessboard because it includes braille labels, raised black squares, and differently sized chess pieces. In addition, the smart board requires a camera, LEDs, a speaker, and an NVIDIA Jetson (or another single-board edge computer ), all of which must be wired together. The Jetson or another edge computer (SBC) is a necessary expense because the final product relies on computer vision to detect piece positions. This increases manufacturing costs and assembly time. The cost of the SBC itself stays roughly the same regardless of production scale, although other costs, such as design and engineering (only done once), LEDs, and sensors, can be reduced when components are purchased in larger quantities. Hence the production cost can be justified with scale.
Another economic factor to consider is distribution. The board would likely reach its intended users best through schools, organizations, and assistive technology retailers that serve visually impaired people. I believe these are the best channels because visually impaired learners and their teachers are likely to find the board through them. We could also make it available online for teachers (from schools) to purchase. Finally, looking at consumption, the board has to compete with free chess apps and cheaper tactile boards that have no electronics. For our target users, however, apps may require constant use of a screen reader and can be difficult to navigate. Similarly, tactile-only boards do not provide feedback on moves, such as hints or corrections, without a coach. This makes it difficult for someone who does not already know chess to learn. The additional cost of the electronics therefore meets a need for visually impaired users by giving them a way to learn and correct their mistakes without a separate human guide.
