This week we submitted the design report, which required making more decisions about the power supply part of the hardware subsystem. There seems to be some discussion of which battery we will use. Teadora’s proposal is a standard 9V battery with a step down converter to power the RPico and IMU at 5V. Katherine’s proposal involves a 3.7V lithium ion battery to power the RPi Pico and IMU.
This upcoming week we need to test and potentially make some revisions to our design now that our parts have arrived. We will test the parts with what we have so far and determine if we need to make adjustments or not. We also need to order a part to add ADC pins to our RPi Pico, but Katherine has already found the part/s that we can use for that.
Additional questions:
Section A was written by Katherine
Global factors to be considered for our project are for people without access to computers or technology. This is our main global consideration as our product is geared towards people who want to learn, however it would be hard for someone who does not have a computer since our product would work with a computer in pairing. As of right now, our design is dependent on a local machine to run our algorithm and website. As our product is a prototype we are expecting that it would be significantly more accessible with our algorithm and website uploaded to AWS Cloud. Therefore it would be as simple as having the URL, a computer and the glove. However, as our project specifically interfaces with a computer to display results it would change our product greatly to make it accessible to anyone who does not have one.
Section B was written by Teadora
The cultural factors we are considering are beliefs around disability and interpersonal connection. Historically, people with disabilities have been excluded from public life, whether intentionally or through a lack of accessible options. When we were researching existing ASL sensing gloves, a lot of the options focused on recognizing signs and reading them out loud to reduce the need for an interpreter. These design decisions reinforce a cultural belief that speaking out loud is a better form of communication. However, they don’t respond to the reality that sign languages are their own complete languages, separate from spoken language. As a note from the Virginian community college Germana states, “The sentence “I see a big orange cat” would be signed as follows:CAT, ORANGE, BIG, I SEE [1]. In situations where quick and accurate communication with someone who uses ASL is needed, the existing gloves won’t suffice, and in some ways continue to exclude the deaf community from public life. Our design is based in the belief that learning ASL is a better solution because it connects with an existing language and culture. Our project emphasizes specific users: people who are interested in learning ASL, perhaps to communicate with friends or because they’re losing some hearing themselves. Another cultural factor is that ASL has started to increase in cultural capital. It’s seen as impressive for someone to know ASL, and this is emphasized by the inclusion of ASL interpreters in popular entertainment, like concerts and TV shows. Our design recognizes that communicating in ASL is increasingly necessary and desirable, not just to the deaf community but to the broader American public.
Section C was written by Nia
The environmental factors for our device mainly relate to the materials used in the hardware and the energy consumption of the device. Because our design uses electronic components such as the Raspberry Pi Pico, an IMU sensor, wiring, and a battery power supply, it contributes to the broader issue of electronic waste. Electronic devices often contain metals, plastics, and batteries that can be harmful to the environment if they are not disposed of properly. When selecting components for our prototype, we considered using available and reusable parts so that they can be repurposed in other projects rather than immediately discarded.
Another environmental consideration involves the type of battery used to power the system. The team discussed using either a standard 9V battery with or a 3.3V lithium-ion battery. While 9V batteries are easy to obtain, they are often disposable and may contribute more waste if replaced frequently. Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, on the other hand, can be reused many times and generally produce less battery waste over the lifetime of the device. However, lithium-ion batteries must also be handled and recycled properly because they contain materials that can be hazardous if they end up in landfills [2].
[1] “Provided by ASL Grammar Guide The Academic Center for Excellence 1 ASL Grammar Guide,” 2023. Available: https://germanna.edu/sites/default/files/2023-07/ASL%20Grammar%20Guide%20%28edit%207-24-23%29.pdf
[2] Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Lithium-Based Battery Management Fact Sheet. 2020. Available: https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wmp/SolidWaste/Documents/lithium-basedBatteryManagementFactSheet.pdf
