Diana Yifan Xu

Janet C Read
email: jcread@uclan.ac.uk

Experience focused Requirements Gathering with Children and Young People -Balancing Player, Learner and User (PLU) Requirement Needs

Keywords:

This chapter is bridging the gap of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Requirement Engineering (RE) where the intended users or appropriators of the technology or service are children and young people. The research draws theory and practices from several disciplines: Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Interaction Design (IXD) but also from psychology, educational technology and games. Research into children and young people's requirement needs as Player, Learner and User (PLU) is a main theme in Interaction Design for Children (IDC). This chapter focuses on the challenges and issues that arise when conducting requirement gathering with children and young people; it looks at common methods, approaches and methodological innovation in the current research while treating children as research partners in the requirements gathering process HCI,

Introduction: Child-Computer Interaction (CCI), Children's Experience

CCI or Child-Computer Interaction is a reasonably newly established discipline that focuses on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) where the intended users or appropriators of the technology or service are children and young people. It grew from pockets of work, mainly driven by interests in technology use within education and schools, in its own early years, before developing into an identifiable community within the HCI space which is beginning a process of maturing into its own discipline with its own associated methods and solutions [START_REF] Read | The nature of child computer interaction[END_REF] as an IFIP SIG group 1 .

Similar to the multidisciplinary HCI, CCI draws theory and practice from several disciplines, and lessons are learned from the current practices of working with children in various fields. It is often inspired by child-centred participatory approaches that originated from child psychology and social science.

The book Researching Children's Experience [START_REF] Greene | Researching Children's Experience: Approaches and Methods: Methods and Approaches[END_REF] has provided methods and approaches in developmental psychology: from naturalistic observations to participatory research with children and the humanistic participatory way of working with children is common in childhood studies and social sciences. Some examples of influential works in the field are the 'Mosaic Approach' [START_REF] Clark | Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach 2nd[END_REF] and 'The Hundred Languages of Children' [START_REF] Edwards | The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation[END_REF]; they work with the nature of children's expressions: diverse, divergent and intertwining. The recent review on methodology of working with children [START_REF] Fargas-Malet | research with children: methodological issues and innovative techniques[END_REF], and investigations on various children's social experiences [START_REF] Mauthner | Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: lessons from three research projects[END_REF] have raised the common point, that there has been a methodological shift, involving the emergence of new 'participatory' research methodologies, the adaptation of more traditional methods, such as observation, and the development of multi-method approaches.

Children and Young People's Requirement Needs

User Experience (UX) is the new usability. Technology for children and young people is increasingly becoming experience focused, and in doing so considers their experiences as Players, Learners and Users (PLU). The PLU model [START_REF] Read | The nature of child computer interaction[END_REF][START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF] defines how children interact with technology and maps how their three distinct requirement needs as Players, Learners or Users; can be met by technologies that are described as Entertainment, Education, and Enabling. The intended relationship of child to the technology assists in considering how the interactive product may be designed and developed: • Player Requirements -The child sees the interactive product as a toy and gameplay thing; the product must amuse or entertain, be fun and challenging. Example technologies are games and interactive toys. • Learner Requirements -The interactive product is a learning tool similar to school or a teacher; the product is expected to instruct, challenge and reward. Typ-ical examples are educational software and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). • User Requirements -For the product to be useful it must enable the child and make things easier to do. The examples can be handwriting recognition software, a word processor, an energy use tracker or an interactive TV.

The PLU model demonstrates children's different roles and activities from both children's and adults' perspectives; in picking up a product, the children's concern may be all about play, while adults might place the importance on learning. Most children's products share two or three of the (PLU) requirement features, an example is educational games: these have to be playful, appealing to children and at the same time delivering the expected learning benefit; that is to balance the different requirement needs and to meet the interests of all stakeholders.

To carry out requirements gathering with children and young people, an understanding of some of the differences between adults and children and their use of technology can be established [START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF]:

Children as Players

Children find play natural, they have high levels of imagination, so much of their play can be hard to visualize for adults. In requirement gathering, if asked, the children might say that they have been playing, but it can sometimes be difficult to observe. Play is essential for children because it contributes to their development (they do not play just to relax). Children learn by playing, but they may not report that they learned something if the learning was a result of the play.

Children as Learners

Children have more to learn than adults do, so they have to learn more quickly and efficiently. The effort they report when learning might seem lower than would be expected given the difficulty they may demonstrate on their faces, however they learn more easily, and much of what they learn is informal. When asked, children might not even know what they learned. Children are into learning; they find it very natural and have a lot of curiosities. It is highly likely that children will learn things that had not been planned into an activity. It should be noted that children's mental models are often incomplete, so they may not be able to explain why things are the way they are. They might not be able to give reasons for the things they do.

Children as Users

Children age more quickly, so their needs for technology keep changing; it is essential to ensure that technology is age appropriate. They have different motivations than adults. They only use technology if they want to; they also have much more discretion than adults. If they don't like what is put in front of them, they may walk away.

Children expect more from ordinary products. They may believe that technology is magic, this can lead to high expectations that may not be realized and may discourage the child. As all the differences suggest, children and young people are NOT simply small adults, their unique requirement needs for interactive products and services should be considered.

Establishing Requirements

The activity of understanding what a product should do is variously described as requirements gathering, requirements capture, requirements elicitation, requirements analysis and requirements engineering [START_REF] Rogers | Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction[END_REF]. The term 'establishing requirements' is often used to describe the process of finding out what users may want or need in a system [START_REF] Read | Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children[END_REF].

Establishing requirements is about understanding the potential users. It provides insight into the many possible solutions in order to select and investigate the best solution from the users' perspective. The requirements gathering phase is the period when the product team must do its initial research in order to determine the direction of the product, which is critical in creating a basis for the design. Poor requirements collection will impact the remaining stages of the product life-cycle, which will end up with misguided products that won't sell, or products that may be unusable and useless to the user and/or the company that purchases them [START_REF] Baxter | Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods Tools and Techniques[END_REF].

A requirement is a statement on what a product should do, or how it should behave. Rogers et al [START_REF] Rogers | Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction[END_REF] have identified five different types of requirement for systems that are being developed for adults:

─ Functional requirement -a statement of what the product should be able to do. ─ Data requirement -a statement about the data within the product. ─ Environmental requirement -specify the circumstances within which the product will operate; this will include the physical environment, the social environment, the organizational environment and the technical environment. ─ User requirement -used to capture the characteristics of the user group; their skills, whether they are novices or experts, whether they will be casual or frequent users. ─ Usability requirements -will be concerned with effectiveness and efficiency, accessibility and learnability.

Among the five types of requirement, the first three tend to be more system focused, while the User and Usability Requirements are more about the user and the usage of the product in situ. In many cases, determining requirements is best done with the assistance of real or potential users, especially when the potential users are children [START_REF] Read | Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children[END_REF].

Requirements Gathering with Children and Young People

End users' expertise in the development of new applications is acknowledged in usercentred participatory design. Similarly, children's experience of what they find enjoyable and how they learn is a valuable source of inspiration for the design of products intended for them [START_REF] Nousiainen | Exploring Children's Requirements for Game-Based Learning Environments[END_REF]. A child-centred interaction design requires methods suitable to gather information from and about children. Though different opinions about what role children should play range from very active design partner [START_REF] Druin | Children as our technology design partners, in The Design of Children's technology[END_REF][START_REF] Kafai | Children as designers, testers, and evaluators of educational software, in The design of children's technology[END_REF] to a less active role as informants [START_REF] Scaife | Designing For or Designing With? Informant Design for Interactive Learning Environments[END_REF], most people agree that children can provide useful insights into the design and development of their technology and service [START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF].

There are a number of common methods and approaches for gathering requirements to inform Interaction Design for Children (IDC): from traditional methods like observations, interviews and questionnaires, to recent methodological innovations that have been specifically tailored to children, such as Drawing Intervention (DI) [START_REF] Xu | Children and 'smart' technologies: can children's experiences be interpreted and coded?[END_REF] and Obstructed Theatre [START_REF] Mazzone | Considering context, content, management, and engagement in design activities with children[END_REF][START_REF] Read | Using obstructed theatre with child designers to convey requirements[END_REF].

In general, with a user-centred participatory approach, there are three means by which requirements can be gathered:

• Observation: watching children on what they do.

• Interview, focus group and survey: asking children about their opinions.

• Participatory Design: doing design with children.

Most of the time, the three approaches of "watch, ask and do" are combined to achieve a triangulation of the data, e.g. combining observed and reported requirement needs. The following subsections explore some of the common methods and approaches and how they could be applied in practice.

Observations, Watching What Children Do

One simple approach to working with children is by observing what they do in a realistic setting. Generally speaking, the term observation refers to an examination of a phenomenon that results in a description suitable for the purpose of a research study [START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF]. For example, field observation combined with low-tech probes has been used for requirement gathering for a multimedia museum environment with 5 to 10-year-olds [START_REF] Mazzone | Requirements for a multimedia museum environment[END_REF]; and classroom observation followed by surveys was used for understand what is needed for a handwriting recognition interface for children aged 6 to 7 (Read, MacFar-

lane et al. 2004).
Naturalistic observation is often a preferred approach when working with children, as, compared to working in a lab, children in their familiar environment are more relaxed and at ease, with any observer effect minimised. Also by working in children's natural environments, product use is naturally embedded in their everyday activities and the interactions take place within their social setting and context, which can be hard to replicate or capture in a lab.

In a number of observational studies, a probe or a mock-up of the system is used to prompt technology and non-technology related requirements during the observation.

These can be non-functional prototypes made of low-tech materials like paper and cupboards [START_REF] Mazzone | Requirements for a multimedia museum environment[END_REF] or they could be storyboards that show the basic idea of the technology to be developed [START_REF] Hall | Using storyboards to guide virtual world design[END_REF]. Sometimes the Wizard of Oz technique is used to gather hardware requirements [START_REF] Andersson | Using a Wizard of Oz study to inform the design of SenToy[END_REF] and other times Video prototypes are used to demonstrate how the system, if made, might have worked [START_REF] Hutchinson | Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families[END_REF].

Observation can be direct or indirect. Direct observation is done by the observer, who might watch or listen to what children do. Indirect observation can use photos, audio and video recordings. In some research studies, both direct and indirect observations are employed for rich data. A direct observation can be structured or unstructured. In an unstructured observation, open questions may be asked and the record will be rich descriptions of context without a priori limiting of the range of events or behaviours. The advantage of unstructured observation is its open-endedness that welcomes surprises and new discoveries. In practice, though, lack of focus can cause some problems and can lead to a low reliability of results between observers due to subjectivity. The observational data may also be many but irrelevant or contrived and may not serve the goals and difficult to analyse.

As an alternative, a structured observation can be carried out. Compared to an unstructured observation this will be more focused and will directly serve the goal of the requirement study. In [START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF], the following steps of a structured observation are explained in details:

1. Determine the focus of your observation 2. Develop observation guides and forms 3. Recruit and train observers 4. Carry out the observation 5. Analyse the interpret findings The focus of the observation is what is being looked for and having a focus means being selective and observing specific events, activities and behaviours. Observers can make more numerous, more detailed, and more reliable observations when they have a specific focus. When developing observation guides and forms, it may be helpful to involve someone with expertise at the particular age of the children, e.g. a teacher, parents and other members of the design team [START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF].

Encourage Children's Verbalization during the Observation.

While observation takes place, it is common to encourage children's verbalization, as this can reveal more of their experience. The verbalization could be children with their peers in a group brainstorming ideas, with discussion, drawings and investigating existing technologies [START_REF] Jones | Experiences obtained from designing with children[END_REF]; or an agent could be introduced for eliciting their selfreport.

An example of the innovative use of an agent is the 'Mission from Mars' method used alongside a participatory design session [START_REF] Dindler | Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space[END_REF] Martians are introduced for a shared narrative space with children, providing a first-hand insight into children's practice in a fun and intriguing way. The method is proposed as a supplement to existing descriptive design methods for interaction design and children. Similarly, 'Designing for Mr Hippo' [START_REF] Read | Designing for Mr Hippo -Introducing Concepts of Marginalisation to Children Designers[END_REF] explored metaphoric design for marginalised children, to provide a fun and easy way for children to begin to understand how to design for users who are not the same as themselves. In both cases, the agents are introduced to encourage children's verbalisation, and for improved self-report.

Interview, Focus Group and Survey, Asking Children their Requirement Needs

Asking children about their requirement needs can be a challenging task, as children's logic, linguistic, cognitive, and communication skills are still developing. Especially for shy young children, they have great difficulties to articulate to a stranger (researcher) in an alien environment. In the field of CCI, some child appropriate alternatives of the interview and questionnaire techniques have been specifically developed.

An interview is a guided conversation in which the researcher seeks information from a child. Given that interviews are flexible and can be used as a solo activity or in conjunction with other user requirements activities, it is one of the most frequently used user requirements gathering techniques. The end result of a set of interviews is an integration of perspectives from multiple users for a holistic view of the system being designing for [START_REF] Baxter | Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods Tools and Techniques[END_REF]. An interview with a child has to be non-threatening, the child to be interviewed may be selected according to his/her verbal communication skills and personal characteristics; for example, the child may be chosen because he/she is articulate and outgoing, it is less common to interview very young children however interviews can be done among children themselves as in KidReporter [START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF], as this minimises unfamiliarity and increases the relevance, and the chance of there being asked child-understandable questions.

One alternative to interviews is the focus group, where the researcher works with a group of children in a setting children are familiar with. In a study of designing energy saving devices with teenagers (Bell, Toth et al. 2013), a small number of children were brought together for an hour or so to provide information in response to a series of questions, and to provide their subjective response to product demonstrations/concepts. Note that for children, the time used is shorter than the normal 1 to 2 hours focus group session with adults, as 45 minutes to an hour resembles the length of a typical school class. Often children are given tasks to complete with the prototype of the product so that they may have a better frame of reference from which to speak. Presenting the questions or product to a group usually sparks group discussion and can provide more information than interviewing individual alone [START_REF] Baxter | Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods Tools and Techniques[END_REF]. Focus groups are best suited to the generation of ideas with children at the initial stage of design.

Questionnaires allow a developer / researcher to ask every child the same questions in a structured manner. These can be administrated on paper or in digital forms; to be given to a class of children, or to be distributed to a large group of children digitally at one time. The advantage of this technique is that it can reach a large demographic however with little room for adaptation. In some design projects, children use questionnaires to contribute ideas and suggestions for future or partially completed de-signs: e.g. for eliciting their mental models [START_REF] Read | What's going on?: discovering what children understand about handwriting recognition interfaces[END_REF] and for gathering requirements for interfaces [START_REF] Read | Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children[END_REF]. There are established guidelines for survey design for children [START_REF] Markopoulos | Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers[END_REF]: 1. Keep it short; 2. Pilot the language; 3. Provide assistance for non-readers and poor readers; 4. Limit the writing; 5. User appropriate tools and methods; 6. Make it fun; 7. Expect the unexpected; 8. Don't take it too seriously; and 9. Be nice! The Fun Toolkit is a popular selection of tools that were designed with these guidelines in mind; it use pictures instead of words, and simple children's language instead of technical jargon. The Fun Toolkit consists of a "Smileyometer", a "Fun Sorter" and an "Again-Again table". The toolkit can be used for sampling children's experience, comparing and ranking activities. It is fun and attractive, and reduces some of the effects of satisficing and optimizing. [START_REF] Read | Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children's opinions of technology[END_REF] When it comes to surveying emotions and experiences over time, one approach can be to combine Cultural Probes and Experience Sampling [START_REF] Kubey | Experience Sampling Method Applications to Communication Research Questions[END_REF], in a design research method for inquiries involving young children in the design of artefacts supporting daily life activities and outside a classroom context [START_REF] Riekhoff | Sampling young children's experiences with cultural probes[END_REF]. In this study, to sample experiences of a very young child who could not read and write, a probes package including diary/booklet, stickers, a disposable camera, pencils, coloured paper, drawing paper, crayons etc. was used. The difficulties of obtaining self-report by children over time can be overcome by involving parents and by using appropriately defined playful assignments in the form of cultural probes as with Iversen and Nielsen who worked with children 11-13, using mobile phones (digital cultural probes) as a data capture device and found that they provided access to children's everyday lives that was not accessible through other means [START_REF] Iversen | Using digital cultural probes in design with children[END_REF].

Participatory design, Design Sessions with Children

Participatory design emphasises user participation in the decisions related to computing systems that have an impact on their lives. An important aspect of this approach is that users act as fully empowered participants in the design process. One technique for doing this is to ensure that users have early exposure to the target implementation technology -even if this must be done through coarse-granularity, relatively static mock-ups [START_REF] Muller | PICTIVE-an exploration in participatory design[END_REF]. Participatory design has been an established method for designing technology for and with users [START_REF] Muller | PICTIVE-an exploration in participatory design[END_REF][START_REF] Muller | Participatory design through games and other group exercises[END_REF] and has become increasing popular for designing with children [START_REF] Druin | Designing multimedia environments for children[END_REF].

As opposed to simply being observed, in participatory design children are directly asked to work with researchers to collaboratively create "low-tech prototypes" out of paper, glue, crayons, and so on. These tools act as an icebreaker for a more comfortable brainstorming session, new technology possibilities that might not have previously been considered can therefore be identified [START_REF] Druin | Designing multimedia environments for children[END_REF][START_REF] Druin | The Design of Children's Technology[END_REF].

An early variation on participatory design is Informant Design [START_REF] Scaife | Designing For or Designing With? Informant Design for Interactive Learning Environments[END_REF], in which stakeholders like children or teachers are seen as experts or 'native informants' informing designers of key issues related to their experience, helping to develop early design ideas and testing prototypes in development [START_REF] Facer | Designing educational technologies with users[END_REF]. For example, informant design sessions with children aged 8 to 10 used mixed media in designing the logical, physical and the interaction of tangible technology for a museum environment [START_REF] Xu | Informant Design with Children -Designing Children's Tangible Technology[END_REF].

There are some participatory design methods and techniques that have been specifically designed for working with children. One example is Cooperative Inquiry [START_REF] Druin | Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children[END_REF], which is a framework for research and design with children, which includes three crucial aspects: a multidisciplinary partnership with children; field research that emphasizes understanding context, activities, and artifacts; and iterative low-tech and high-tech prototyping. Another is KidReporter [START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF], which uses mixed media, combining a number of techniques for eliciting information from children, such as interviews, drawing and making pictures. Participatory Analogy is another technique developed for designing user-centred security for children [START_REF] Read | Under my pillow: designing security for children's special things[END_REF].

Other Innovative Participatory Approaches.

Two recent methodological innovations that are especially developed for working with children, are Drawing Intervention (DI) [START_REF] Xu | Experience it, draw it, rate it: capture children's experiences with their drawings[END_REF] and Obstructed Theatre [START_REF] Mazzone | Considering context, content, management, and engagement in design activities with children[END_REF][START_REF] Read | Using obstructed theatre with child designers to convey requirements[END_REF].

Drawing and sketching has long been a common practice in design, creativity and problem-solving [START_REF] Buxton | Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design[END_REF], where drawing is seen to belong to the set of 'low-tech', lightweight, communicative and creative tools. Children's drawings are widely used for visualizing ideas in the design processes; e.g. for general requirement gathering [START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF][START_REF] Yarosh | Supporting parent-child communication in divorced families[END_REF], Informant Design [START_REF] Scaife | Designing For or Designing With? Informant Design for Interactive Learning Environments[END_REF][START_REF] Xu | Informant Design with Children -Designing Children's Tangible Technology[END_REF] and Participatory Design [START_REF] Lindquist | Co-designing communication technology with and for families: methods, experience, results and impact[END_REF][START_REF] Interliving | Interactive Thread[END_REF]. Drawing has advantages in being visual and concrete, without using abstract verbal descriptions [START_REF] Hemmert | Co-designing with children: a comparison of embodied and disembodied sketching techniques in the design of child age communication devices[END_REF]. In many cases, drawing has been shown to be useful as a form of low-tech prototyping to allow children (and not only children) to envision and visualise their ideas [START_REF] Druin | The Design of Children's Technology[END_REF][START_REF] Xu | Informant Design with Children -Designing Children's Tangible Technology[END_REF][START_REF] Stringer | Exploring the space of nearfuture design with children[END_REF].

In CCI, children's drawings are mostly used as an inquiry tool to elicit children's thoughts and ideas for design and requirements gathering. The drawing activity provides insight into the children's concept, understanding and request of the technologies; they give ideas for future work on the redesign of the systems, concerning the functionality, the content, the types of input and output and the interactions.

Drawing is an inclusive activity; it can be used with children of different ages, gender, language, culture, education, developmental level, etc. An example is a large scale study [START_REF] Reinis | CHILDREN'S FUTURE REQUESTS FOR COMPUTERS & THE INTERNET[END_REF] which had asked over 200 children aged 12 and under across the world to draw their answer to the question: "What would you like your computer or the Internet to do that it can't do right now?". In this case, drawing was used as a universal inquiry tool, overcoming language and cultural barriers, positioning younger people as windows into the future of technology, informing technology experiences of all ages.

In general for working with children, drawing can facilitate communication with them; four different experiments done by [START_REF] Butler | The effect of drawing on memory performance in young children[END_REF][START_REF] Gross | Drawing facilitates children's verbal reports of emotionally laden events[END_REF] demonstrate that children, given the opportunity to draw while they build a narrative, give about TWICE as much accurate, detailed information as those who are not asked to draw. The general usage of drawing can enhance communication through direct visual expression and/or through drawing facilitated verbal expression.

The idea of Obstructed Theatre originated from [START_REF] Briggs | Film as invisible design: the example of the biometric daemon[END_REF]. In the technique, the research team used a slightly humorous video clip in which one actor described some of the functionality of an interactive device in a conversation with another actor whilst referring to, but not showing, the off-screen interactive device in question [START_REF] Read | Using obstructed theatre with child designers to convey requirements[END_REF].

The method is intended to trigger design ideas without biasing the imagination by showing a real object. After the video film, the researchers encouraged the children to think about what the mysterious device could do and what it would look like. No functional constraints were given in this activity: the children were free to imagine any magic behaviour fancied and were facilitated to try to convey their ideas with art and craft material [START_REF] Mazzone | Considering context, content, management, and engagement in design activities with children[END_REF]. This separation from the physical device allows discussion of functionality without giving 'too much' away during the design briefing stage.

Summary, Challenges and Issues

Children and young people are not simply small adults; they have their unique requirement needs for interactive products and services. The methods and approaches introduced in this chapter show the overall trend of requirement gathering with children as being a child-centred mixed-method approach with a focus on their experience. It raises many possibilities for working with children on gathering their unique requirement needs.

To get a richer context and a deeper understanding, very often, a combination of methods and approaches are deployed. For example: a systematic observation followed by a semi-structured interview for the requirement gathering for a museum environment [START_REF] Mazzone | Requirements for a multimedia museum environment[END_REF]; technology probes for exploratory use, peer discussion and critique followed by focus group sessions for designing technology to reduce teenager energy use [START_REF] Bell | Teenagers talking about technologies: designing technology to reduce teen energy use[END_REF]; classroom observation followed by surveying (interview and questionnaire) in requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition interface [START_REF] Read | Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children[END_REF]; obstructed theatre, drawing and emoticons survey with observation for gathering requirement for a mobile music device for social inclusion [START_REF] Mazzone | Considering context, content, management, and engagement in design activities with children[END_REF]. With some other examples listed in the following table:

Technology or service Requirement gathering methods & approaches used

Age of children

Children as

Interactive museum environment [START_REF] Mazzone | Requirements for a multimedia museum environment[END_REF] Observation, semi-structured interview

5-10 Learner

Design of a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) [START_REF] Hall | Using storyboards to guide virtual world design[END_REF] Storyboard and observation 8-12 Learner

Computer mediated communication for children and families [START_REF] Hutchinson | Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families[END_REF] Video prototyping, Participatory Design and Cooperative Design

3+ User

Technology to reduce teenager energy use ([50] Technology probes for exploratory use, peer discussion and critique followed by focus group sessions 10+ User School classroom Software for encouraging collaborative working [START_REF] Jones | Experiences obtained from designing with children[END_REF] Observation, Brainstorming with low-tech prototyping and storyboarding 7-10 Learner and User Interactive educational game [START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF] KidReporter that combines many techniques like interviews, drawing and making pictures 9-10 Player and Learner Game-Based Learning Environments User interface (UI) drawings, idea 7-9 Player [START_REF] Nousiainen | Exploring Children's Requirements for Game-Based Learning Environments[END_REF] maps, and evaluations of existing learning environments 11-12 and Learner Electronic school bag (eBag) for a shared narrative space [START_REF] Dindler | Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space[END_REF] Mission from Mars 10-11 Player and User Affective input-device design (SenToy) [START_REF] Andersson | Using a Wizard of Oz study to inform the design of SenToy[END_REF] Wizard of Oz prototyping 14+ Player and User Handwriting recognition interface [START_REF] Read | Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children[END_REF] classroom observation followed by surveying (interview and questionnaire)

6-7

Player, Learner and User Mobile music device for social inclusion [START_REF] Mazzone | Considering context, content, management, and engagement in design activities with children[END_REF] obstructed theatre, drawing and emoticons survey with observation 5-10

Player, Learner and User However there are challenges and issues that arise when choosing the most suitable requirement gathering methods and carrying out work in practice:

─ Balancing different requirement needs, e.g. for fun, learning, and communication (use); that meet the interests of all stakeholders. ─ Ensuring that the methods and approaches for children are playful, motivating and stimulating; child-appropriate and suited for their reading and writing levels, and their preferences for expressing themselves in different ways, e.g. verbally or nonverbally. ─ Combining diverse data to optimise the data quality. With adults, but possibly more so with children, it is important to check for consistency of answers, by gathering similar information from different sources. For example, using various methods such as interviews, observations and diary methods. ─ Ensuring the technique results in useful information for the design of targeted applications, e.g. on educational games, tangible technology, small devices, mobile, distributed app, service development etc.

To summarise: gathering ideas from children early in the design process has yielded useful insights into what children want in technology in general or in a specific type of application. Druin et al. [START_REF] Druin | Children as our technology design partners, in The Design of Children's technology[END_REF], for example, discovered that children want control, variety, social interaction, and creative tools, and that they pay attention to the appearance, learnability, and "coolness" of an application, as well as on how rich it is in terms of the use of multimedia. Children's early involvement in requirements gathering has revealed clues also about, for example, gender differences in preferences related to technology, children's navigation skills, ways of presenting textual information, application-specific content related preferences, the variety of elements to be included in user interfaces and their structures, and children's desire to personalize their applications [START_REF] Nousiainen | Exploring Children's Requirements for Game-Based Learning Environments[END_REF][START_REF] Bekkera | KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children[END_REF][START_REF] Hall | Using storyboards to guide virtual world design[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | Experiences obtained from designing with children[END_REF][START_REF] Dindler | Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space[END_REF][START_REF] Bilal | Draw and tell: Children as designers of web interfaces[END_REF][START_REF] Xu | Experience it, draw it, rate it: capture children's experiences with their drawings[END_REF].

Conclusion

Nowadays the design and development of children's and young people's technologies has been focusing on their experience at home, school and public spaces. Research into their requirement needs as Player, Learner and User (PLU) are one of the main themes in Interaction Design for Children (IDC). This chapter introduces this unique research domain, presents an overview of the current practice in requirement gathering with children and young people. It shows a variety of common methods and approaches, and child-appropriate methodological innovation in the current research. This: ─ Presents a broad range of requirement gathering methods and approaches; ─ Provides insights on when to apply the various requirement gathering methods for various requirements and shows how methods can be also applied to a more general HCI context; ─ Includes new research on requirement gathering methodological innovations applicable for novel technologies, e.g. Tangible Technologies (TanTech) and portable devices; ─ Describes new methodological innovations; This chapter hopes to give an overview for researchers and practitioners in the field for carrying out requirement gathering research with children and young people.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig.1. The PLU Model[START_REF] Read | The nature of child computer interaction[END_REF]

Table 1 .

 1 Requirement Gathering Methods and Approaches, Examples in Practice

http://www.idc-sig.org/


Stephanie Ludi
email: salvse@rit.edu

Requirements Gathering and Domain Understanding for Assistive Technology to Support Low Vision and Sighted Students

Keywords: . component; Accessibility, elicitation, visually impaired 1

Accessibility often concerns compatibility with third-party software in order to meet the needs of users who are disabled. The AccessLecture/Math project seeks to transform the Apple iPad into a tool to make Math and Science class more accessible to visually impaired students. Accessing lecture material during lecture is a challenge to low vision students, in terms of the limited options that can be costly or can allow access only upon the completion of the lecture. This paper presents the strategies and techniques used to help the team gather the needs and tasks of math/science instructors and visually impaired students. These groups are distributed geographically and represent diverse constituencies. The analysis of the environment, user groups and the tasks related to the course lecture were modeled in order to ascertain domain knowledge and to specify the system's requirements.

Introduction

Imagine you have low vision and are enrolled in a math or science course. The instructor writes the course material on the whiteboard. You try to capture notes based on what is said by the instructor but you can't grasp the material until you get a copy notes after class. But after class it is too late to connect what the instructor is saying to the material he/she has written. This is the common state of Math and Science class for visually impaired students in the United States.

Access to science and math education is critical to facilitating science, math, engineering and technology careers. The goal of AccessLecture/Math is to develop a system that provides visually impaired students enrolled in secondary school and at the university level with greater access to science and math presentations in the classroom. The project leverages portable hardware, part of which attaches to a whiteboard that communicates with a computer that archives the lecture and broadcasts it to the tablet. This enables students with low vision to participate in math and science lectures, thus improving achievement. Students will use a portable tablet to enlarge and adjust the material as needed, navigate through material and refer to prior material and notes. The real-time presentation of material enables students to ask questions at the time the material and activities are presented.

The AccessLecture/Math (AL/M) project has a hardware side and a software side. For the initial prototype, existing hardware will be used to capture lecture material. The focus of AL/M is the software side, where the whiteboard marker strokes are sent to the iPad for display, annotation, and archiving via a server (the instructor's station for the prototype).

The hardware used for the prototype is commercially available (Mimio Interactive) and uses wireless communication (between the pens and a bar placed on the whiteboard) and USB (between the bar and a computer). The proposed software will be developed for the iPad and will enable the student to use touch to zoom in/out of the captured whiteboard information and to navigate through the lecture material. Student notes are entered via a stylus or through an attached keyboard using USB or the iPad's keyboard. This paper will present the diverse approaches used to elicit requirements and model both the user classes and tasks for AccessLecture/Math, including working with stakeholders with special needs (geographically distributed, visually impaired). Other research in the area focuses on developing software for use with other assistive technology (e.g. a screen reader), rather than the development of assistive technology itself [START_REF] Brunet | Accessibility requirements for systems design to accommodate users with vision impairments[END_REF][START_REF] Khanifer | Towards a Situation Awareness Design to Improve Visually Impaired Orientation in Unfamiliar Buildings: Requirements Elicitation Study[END_REF]. The methods used in this paper take elicitation and modeling techniques and applies them to an assistive tool that has two primary user groups.

AL/M users consist of Math and Science instructors and of the low vision students enrolled in their classes. In order to meet the needs of students and instructors, detailed surveys and interviews were conducted at both the secondary school level and university level. The information and process used to attain the user needs, task and environmental information is used to devise detailed user and task profiles. The analysis results have implications for the design and testing of the AccessLecture/Math system itself.

Background

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) professionals remain in demand and careers in computing have been identified as professions that will continue to be in high demand for years to come [START_REF]Tomorrow's jobs[END_REF]. However, a gap exists in the participation by students with disabilities, particularly with the approximately 93,400 students with visual impairments currently in US schools. The proposed project seeks to better prepare visually impaired students by increasing their access to science and math lecture material. The current lack of access is seen as contributing to the lack of career options for students who are visually impaired [START_REF] Stanley | Assessing the mathematics related communication requirements of the blind in education and career[END_REF]. Unlike the statistical data in STEM that is gathered for female and ethnic minority students, very little information is available on the achievement and participation of students with disabilities [START_REF]Land of plenty diversity as america's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology: report of the congressional commission on the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and technology development[END_REF]. The gap is intensified in terms of information on students in specific disability groups, such as students with visual impairments as at best students with disabilities are all grouped together statistically. The 2000 Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development identifies the lack of precollege preparation for students with disabilities [START_REF]Land of plenty diversity as america's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology: report of the congressional commission on the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and technology development[END_REF]. This lack of preparation shows in high school science and math classrooms, subjects in which students with disabilities take fewer courses, and, when enrolled, typically receive lower grades than students without disabilities [START_REF]Land of plenty diversity as america's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology: report of the congressional commission on the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and technology development[END_REF]. To compound the problems that arise from the visual nature of instruction, often traditional lecture or the addition of active learning components, the visual display of problems and issues with gaining immediate access to the material while instruction is occurring makes math and science content difficult for students with visual impairments to interpret. Students often receive notes after class. The 2000 Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development explored issues throughout the pipeline for women, minorities and people with disabilities. The report states that the Commission favors precollege reform efforts focusing on better preparation, support, and the professional development of teachers [START_REF]Land of plenty diversity as america's competitive edge in science, engineering and technology: report of the congressional commission on the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and technology development[END_REF]. The Ac-cessLecture/Math project focuses on the need for better support, in terms of assistive technology to facilitate the real-time presentation of lecture material to support the learning process and facilitate participation in lecture.

Among all working-age legally blind Americans, the unemployment rate is approximately 70% [START_REF]Statistics and sources for professionals[END_REF]. Regardless of visual acuity, a factor contributing to the lack of preparation for the workplace is education. According to American Foundation for the Blind statistics, approximately 93,600 school age children are visually impaired or blind [START_REF]Statistics and sources for professionals[END_REF]. The high school completion rates vary by race disproportionately to the rate of visual impairment where visually impaired students who are white, Af r i c a n -American and Hispanic graduate with at least a high school education at 62%, 41% and 44%, respectively [START_REF]Statistics and sources for professionals[END_REF]. Of those who graduated from high school, students who are legally blind are as likely to have completed some college courses as their sighted counterparts; however, students who are visually impaired are less likely to graduate from college [START_REF]Statistics and sources for professionals[END_REF].

The exact numbers of students with visual impairments who pursue STEM education is not known, but anecdotal evidence suggests the numbers are very low, as statistics either are only filtered for gender and ethnicity or all disability groups are combined. Academic preparation in science and math courses that channel students into STEM careers is low in part due to the difficulty in accessing information, especially the highly abstract and visually oriented information [START_REF] Smith | A java programming tool for Students with visual disabilities[END_REF]. Many concepts in math and science are highly visual, with diagrams, graphs and equations that are difficult to explain in static text and the dynamic changes are difficult to capture and interpret in isolation. As such, science and math achievement by young students who are visually impaired is less than that of their sighted peers. While groups such as the National Federation of the Blind [9] offer outreach efforts to encourage young people to pursue STEM, such pioneering efforts are sorely in need of the follow-up and classroom support to provide young people the tools to ultimately pursuit STEM careers. Much research focuses on the blind rather than the visually impaired, which includes those with low vision. For example, the audio depiction of information such as math through lecture or calculators has been investigated [START_REF] Gardner | The accessible graphing calculator: a self-voicing graphing scientific calculator for windows[END_REF].

The AccessLecture/Math project focuses on the presentation of material conveyed in lecture. Others have explored lecture in terms of distance education such as em-bedding text-to-speech features in slides used in web-based lecture [START_REF] Davison | Sonification sandbox overhaul: software standard for auditory graphs[END_REF][START_REF] Rughooputh | Integrating text-to-speech software into pedagogically sound teaching and learning scenarios[END_REF][START_REF] Walkter | Universal design of auditory graphs: a Comparison of sonification mappings for visually impaired and sighted listeners[END_REF]. In terms of science instruction, research has shown the importance of involving visually impaired students in t h e c l a s s r o o m e x p e r i e n c e b e y o n d c o n t r i v e d , t r i v i a l e x p e r iences/activities that do not challenge the student or include them in the experiences that the rest of the class experiences [START_REF] Fraser | Teaching life sciences to blind and visually impaired learners[END_REF]. AccessLecture/Math seeks to address this gap, in terms of access to material presented on the whiteboard during lecture, enabling the student to ask questions at the time of presentation and participate in class activities that rely on presented material. As such the focus on real-time presentation to low vision students is innovative.

The AccessLecture/Math project focuses on the needs of students who are visually impaired, specifically those with functional, low vision. The phrase, visually impaired, encompasses the spectrum of impaired vision. The term "legally blind" is defined through US federal law, referring "central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the best possible correction, as measured on a Snellen vision chart, or a visual field of 20 degrees or less" [START_REF]Statistics and sources for professionals[END_REF]. As of 1995, approximately 1.3 million Americans are considered legally blind [START_REF]Statistics on blindness in the model reporting area, 1969-70[END_REF]. "Of these individuals, 80% (1,040,000) had some "useful vision" (a rate of 40 per 1,000). The other 20% (260,000) had only light perception or less vision (a rate of 1 per 1,000). Half of these individuals were totally blind (130,000), that is, had no light perception (a rate of 0.5 per 10,000)." [9] The range that this project will focus on is that of students with vision of 20/100 to 20/800, corrected.

Reaching representative users, in this case secondary-school students (grades 6 -12) as well as university students is critical in order to provide a usable and useful, accessible system. By targeting students who are low vision, we propose to prototype a solution that supports both increased math and science achievement, and thus increased choices for students in their future endeavors.

AccessLecture/Math may also help Math, Science, and itinerant (VI Support) teachers with strategies to support low vision students. Presentation of math and science material is significant in terms of accessible textbooks, lecture material, or class activities. The AL/M system seeks to enable educators to move from the challenges of material presentation to deeper concept understanding and linking understanding to the material (ultimately with student annotation features that are out of scope in this proposal). Students can have more ownership over their learning and the ability to ask questions based on the immediate material in class, while educators can provide more immediate feedback to visually impaired students in class. Currently this is a difficult dialog to attain either via extensive enlargement of printed material (which may not be exactly what the teacher is presenting on the whiteboard) or through notes that the student must view after class. Current approaches to supporting students who are visually impaired in the classroom consist of note taking by another student or an in-class aide, possibly alongside recording the lecture. The use of tactile tablets and other assistive technologies are very expensive and require extensive teacher training. A study publicized in the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness studied the use of various assistive technologies used by teachers in the classroom [START_REF] Abner | Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: teachers' readiness[END_REF]. The study showed that a majority of teachers are not prepared to use such technologies and thus students are impacted. The AccessLecture/Math system will leverage the skill of writing on the whiteboard, which is common in most math and science classrooms. The intended result will be for little to no training on the teacher's part in terms of presenting material on the whiteboard. Such low overhead will be important for teacher buy-in to use the system.

Survey and Interview Design

The population of visually impaired students is a diverse group that is distributed in low numbers across the US. In addition to the socioeconomic diversity of students in general, the varied characteristics include:

• Year in school (for secondary and university students) • Major (university students only) • Gender • Geographical location • Math education experience • Degree of visual impairment and implications on the classroom experience • Experience with classroom accommodations and instructional settings Two factors, geographical location and the degree of visual impairment's bearing on accommodations to read print, lead to the search for and design of an accessible online survey. A survey was designed over an interview due to the number of participants and the difficulty in scheduling interviews between student participants in different time zones and the student researchers who would have interviewed the participants. If the scheduling issue did not exist, then interviews would have been a preferred method to explore the participant experiences. Many researchers conduct surveys, but we required an online survey that can accommodate participants who use assistive technology (e.g. screen readers, magnification software). At the time, the best solution that allowed for complex, branching surveys and produced useful reports was the Surveymonkey.com service.

A survey was developed to capture students' pre-college (middle school and high school) and university experience in Math and Science courses. The university students' majors were not important given that each student would have had several pre-college Math and Science courses in order to be admitted to their university and non-STEM majors require some college level Math and Science courses. This approach provides a wide view of the varied pre-college and university campuses that the students have attended. The diversity includes rural, urban, and sub-urban campuses in different socio-economic levels across the United States.

Student Survey Design and Sampling

The design of the survey entailed the questions as well as the answer mechanisms. The survey system selected is accessible to students with low vision who may need to use magnification software or screen readers. Survey services such as SurveyMonkey or RIT's survey service (Clipboard) has a wide array of question types. Although the on-campus survey service was selected due to its commitment to accessibility, careful question type selected was needed in order to balance the type of feedback needed with ease of answering for the participants. The only question type that is considered difficulty to answer is where the respondent needs to drag and drop items in order to present their ranked list. Due to the fact that persons who are blind do not use a mouse, the ranked list type of question is not accessible. However open-ended questions, multiple or single selection questions, or those with a drop-down list are accessible to all users since the questions can be navigated with a keyboard solely if need be. The questions themselves were divided into general demographic questions, reflection on pre-college math and science classes, and their experience in university math and science classes. For both pre-college and university courses, questions asked about:

• General Information: major in college, year in university, experience with touch screen, multitouch, and smartphone devices • Pre-college Specific Information: served by an IEP (Individualized Education Program) • Pre-college and University Specific Information: classes taken in math and science, accommodations used and those that were helpful in accessing material, difficulties encountered in class due to vision-related issues, issues with getting accommodations and working with instructors, assistive technology used and interest level in trying AccessLecture/Math in their Math and Science classes Gathering information about the diverse backgrounds of students with visual impairments from the students themselves is critical due to the diverse experiences and access to resources that impact their educational experience (in this case in Math and Science). In addition, students' individual experiences and access to resources and support often varies as they progress from one school to another, as well as between K12 schools and the university setting. Part of the variance is due to the more rigorous legal mandates set for pre-college schools.

The survey was primarily of closed-ended questions (single/multiple selection and Likert scale), with some open-ended questions where students could elaborate on answers or provide information on accommodations or issues with them. The focus on the survey is to assess current class accommodations and issues rather than taking an inventory of visual impairments. The team wanted the survey participants to feel comfortable reflecting on their classroom experiences and related technology experience.

The survey was conducted online, through the use of an on-campus survey resource that is accessible. Students in the sample were contacted through the Disabled Student Services office (or related services) at their respective institutions. The survey was shared with three American universities varying in size and location but whose minimum size is 15,000 students in order to provide a likelihood of a critical mass of students with visual impairments. The team also found that larger universities were more likely to have a larger number of students with visual impairments due to the support infrastructure that is in place to support students with various disabilities.

Eleven students responded to the survey. The students represented a variety of majors including English, Mechanical Engineering, Psychology, and Computer Science. All but one student was an undergraduate student. The analysis of the results will follow.

Instructor Interview Design and Sampling

The resources and infrastructure in both the pre-college and university settings vary across the US. As such, the team needed to gather environmental and instructional information from the educator's perspective. Due to the need to gather the idea of the broad landscape for instruction and interaction, the educators did not necessarily need to have worked with students who are visually impaired (though some coverage was sought). Also, the instructor participants were not the instructors who taught any of the student participants.

The interview approach was taken after the team found that instructors did not want to take surveys. Instead instructors wanted to be interviewed either on the phone or in-person by the student researchers (depending on the instructor's location and availability). Interviews also had the advantage of allowing for the exploration of topics in-depth in a semi-structured manner.

The questions focused the following areas of the educator's day-to-day experiences:

• Description of the classroom environment • Use of instructional technology in the classroom • Teaching and lecture style in content presentation and how technology is used • Writing style when conveying material on the board (directionality) • Experience in working with visually impaired students in terms of strategies and logistics rather than student performance • Division of lecture to recitation/lab • Degree of access that students are given to teacher notes • Willingness to allow visually impaired students to use an iPad in class

The interview was highly structured though primarily open-ended questions to enable the instructors to elaborate on their style, preference, and experience. The researchers followed a consistent process for conducting the interviews in terms of question coverage.

Interviews were conducted with eight Math, Science, and Computer Science instructors across the middle school, high school and university level. The student researchers contacted past instructors, in addition to other instructors that they located on departmental Website at those schools. The middle and high school instructors are from the Northeast region, representing both urban/suburban and rural schools. Most of the instructors had no experience with working with students with low vision. A couple of the instructors had experience working with one or two students with low vision over the course of several years.

The pre-college instructors were as open with their answers as the university instructors. As the instructors were self-selected there was little surprise that even when no experience existed with working with visually impaired students, the instructors were generally amenable to accommodating these students. The one exception was one university-level computer science instructor who was less amendable and was against the use of the system. While further analysis would provide more data from computer science instructors, the participant's views were noted as being representative of his personality than of computer science instructors as a population. Given that personal experience of some of the authors in seeking accommodations, most university computer science instructors are have a more positive attitude. The analysis of the results will follow.

Domain Analysis

Complimentary to gathering information about the students and instructors, information also needs to be gathered regarding the domain of math and science education, specifically the classroom environment and related education concepts. The constraints are middle school, high school, and university level math and science education. Middle school is considered to be in grades 6 to 8, where students are typically 11-14 years old. High school is considered to be grades 9 to 12, where students are between the ages of 14 to 18. Student researchers gathered information about environmental and presentations factors that are relevant to understanding the users and their tasks, in addition to the deployment of AccessLecture/Math.

Classroom Environment

Educational settings are varied in terms of several organizational, logistical and environmental factors. The factors were determined initially by taking an inventory of the environmental components in a typical classroom at Rochester Institute of Technology. The student members of the research team added additional factors. As a partial bottom-up approach, some factors (e.g. chalkboards, use of interactive whiteboards such as Smartboard and document projects such as the ELMO) were added during analysis of the instructor interview data. Environmental components include:

• Student capacity • Type and number of chalkboards/whiteboards, and whether the boards are movable (generally vertically) • Use and placement of a projector, Smartboard, or related technology • Types of desks (full desk, half desk, tables) • Location of the instructor's desk/table • Location of electrical outlets • Whether there is wireless communication available to the students • Duration of the class meeting and how often the class meets per week Due to the diverse nature of the classroom, for pre-college or college use, instructors and students alike were asked about their learning environment in math and science classes. Both perspectives are needed as part of user and task analysis. Each group was questioned separately since the students were not expected to be enrolled in the classes of the instructors who were interviewed.

The results of the interviews are presented in Table 1, where pre-college and college results are categorized.

The common use of chalkboards in pre-college courses was a surprise to the author, but the student researchers were not as surprised given their own experiences.

Classroom Presentation

In addition to the structure of the learning environment, there are constraints and factors that impact the students' learning experience in the classroom. The factors were selected in terms of those that would impact the design and use of the AccessLecture/Math system. They include: Instructors were asked specifically about their teaching style while students were asked about the presentation of class material. Both perspectives were needed as part of user and task analysis, in order capture classroom instructor diversity across the many courses that instructors teach and that students are enrolled in over time.

The results of the interviews are presented in Table 2. The classroom presentation of material is often dependent on the individual instructor's teaching style.

User Analysis

With the student surveys and additional research on visual impairments as input, the need to construct the potential users' profile is needed to better meet the needs of prospective users. While some overlap exists, specific needs and characteristics do separate pre-college and university students. The primary focus is on the students, as they will be interacting with the AccessLecture/Math system on the iPad as the primary user. Educators are analyzed separately given that they will be writing on the board using the same process that they would otherwise (the whiteboard marker and eraser will have sensors attached). The general user analysis characteristics are based on those presented in [START_REF] Heim | The resonant interface: HCI foundations for interaction design[END_REF]. Additional characteristics were selected based on the needs of visually impaired students.

User profiles were not used due to the differences in visual impairment, but the categorization of characteristics is similar. Table 3 presents the user analysis

The ranges of skills and characteristics present in the student's user profile reflect those collected in the student surveys. Subsequent user interface design feedback sessions will provide follow-up opportunities for more detailed student visual characteristics and accessibility preferences for the tablet-based/multitouch system. Beyond the user profiles themselves, several nonfunctional requirements are derived, including:

• Students with visual acuity of 20/200 to 20/800 must be able to read content and navigate the user interface independently.

• The text within the user interface must be understandable by a user who reads at the sixth grade level. • The icons used within the user interface must be high contrast and flat (rather than 3D or realistically styled). • The user must be able to choose between high contrast, color icons or black and white icons. • The user must be able to adjust the visual display to their preferences and those preferences must be persistent across sessions. • Notes taken by the student must be in a font size that is readable and adjustable.

• The system software must be able to be used independently by the student, assuming no other disabilities. • The system (hardware) must be portable in terms of weight (less than 6 pounds) and footprint so that a typical user can carry the system from class to class if needed either in their backpack or similar case. • The system (hardware) must be usable throughout the day with no more than 1 charging period. • The system software must be compatible with iOS accessibility features.

Task Analysis

Upon analysis of the student user class and the elicitation, a workflow of the tasks of conducting a class lecture is needed in order to target specific aspects of instruction where AccessLecture/Math fits. The details and flow of the Conveying Material (Educator) task and the Attending Lecture (Student) tasks were elaborated using the Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) approach shown below. The focus of the task analysis is the in-class activities, excluding preparation and grading activities due to the proposed system integration into the lecture itself. The educator's task is more complicated than the student's task in terms in terms of the time needed to complete. However the student's task has different nuances depending on the assistive technology used that are not cleanly captured in the HTA. This demonstrates the need to use the student user profile as a compliment to the HTA. Both have implications on the design of AccessLecture/Math.

Implications on Requirements and Design

In addition to understanding the prospective users, their needs and tasks, the elicited information has direct implications on the system features and the system design. The user interface and the system architecture must meet the student needs in order to be successful. AccessLecture/Math's high-level features are focused on the student's (iPad) interface. The features for the instructor are out of scope for this paper. Student features include:

• The student shall zoom in and out of the displayed material as desired using a pinch and zoom gesture. • The student shall navigate the view of the board while zoomed in or out using a finger or stylus. • The student shall center their view on the currently active part of the written material, when desired. • The system shall snap to the current place where the instructor is writing/erasing on the whiteboard by default. • The recorded lecture session shall include the video of the strokes/erasure and audio of the instructor. • The system shall provide time shifting during the recording, to enable the student to rewind the material (including notes) during a lecture or after a lecture. • The student shall flag parts of the lecture to denote the presence of notes.

• The student shall be able to bookmark spots in the lecture for later reference.

Features focus on the real-time access to content in class and to the related note taking/studying tasks. These features are mostly stated in a user-focused manner, The features must be complemented by nonfunctional requirements, including usability and accessibility requirements. Other requirements such as performance and security requirements are also documented. Several of the usability requirements are derived from the student surveys and instructor interviews, as reflected in the user profile and HTA's.

The detailed usability requirements follow additional best practices for requirement specification in terms of stating relevant benchmarks. The list above presents demonstrates the scope of the usability needs in terms of accessibility, productivity, ease of learning, ease of recall, understandability, and user satisfaction. Each of these requirements will be tested to the same level of rigor as the features, given that the lack of usability will result in a system that will not be used or could possibly impact student performance in a class.

The analysis and resulting requirements have direct implications on the design of AccessLecture/Math. This work is ongoing as the team also becomes familiar with the technologies. Some implications directly involve the iOS libraries to be used, with architectural implications. The most notable aspects of the system design are modularity, adherence to standards, and the separation of concerns (specifically the user interface from the underlying processing and storage). AccessLecture/Math will be evolving over time, with multiple rounds of user testing and with trials of the feasibility of various hardware. As such flexibility and maintainability are critical, where the modularity and separations of concerns will be appreciated. The adherence to Apple's iPad/iPhone Human Interface Guidelines will aid in the user experience. As the design activities move forward, the mapping of the usability and accessibility features are a driver for the system's architecture.

8

Conclusions and Future Work

The information gathered during domain exploration and requirement elicitation has kept the team grounded in the students' needs. Since each student's classroom experience can vary due to prior history, visual characteristics, and the style of instruction, the study of this variety has been helpful in acquiring a big picture view. Some members have personal experience in such accommodations, but the activities completed gave the team a wide view of the student diversity, the needs of the educators, and the constraints of the classroom environment. The data gathering will give a benchmark for comparison later with the usability test participants. The user profiles and task analysis will be revisited throughout the design and testing activities to ensure that the needs of the students are met while unobtrusively integrating the AccessLecture/Math system. Testing will be conducted for both students and educators. The status of the system is currently design and initial usability testing to determine the preferred interaction schemes. The tasks of text entry for note taking and screen navigation with multitouch are being evaluated before the overall iPad system design is completed.

Table 1 .

 1 Classroom environment interview results.

	Factor		Pre-College Classrooms		College Classrooms
	Student		Typically	15-35	Often between 15 -
	Capacity		students			50 students, though
						some schools may use
						larger lecture halls
	Use	&	Chalkboards	more	Some classrooms
	Layout of Chalkboard or Whiteboard	common in middle school; typically the boards are at the front of the room only; some	may have chalkboards, but most have white-boards; Boards are in
			science	classroom	front of room and often
			boards are vertically	on at least one side,
			moveable;		though use of front
						boards most common; In
						science class or large
						lecture halls, some
						boards are vertically
						moveable
	Place	of	Usually present in	LCD projector is of-
	Projector or other technology	more affluent schools, LCD Projector may be on a cart or mounted to ceiling, Smartboards	ten present, usually mounted in middle; Smartboards and
			more	common	in	ELMO's usually not
			affluent	schools,	present
			ELMO's	may	be
			present
	Types	of	Typically full desks or	Often depends on
	Desks		half science classes have desks; some table seating	size of room or age of school; lecture halls often have stadium like
						seating with half-desks
						or tables; traditional
						classrooms often have
						half desks
	Place	of	Front of room, to one	Front of room, typi-
	Instructor Desk		side; usually a desk, often has an instructor computer; the room is generally the	cally to one side; often has a table setup where the instructor connects
			instructor's room		laptop, other equipment;
						the room is typically
						shared with other classes

Table 2 .

 2 Classroom presentation interview results.

	Factor		Pre-College Students	College Students
	Use	of	The common means of conveying class in-
	Chalkboard or Whiteboard	formation
	Use	of	Some teachers use	LCD projects
	Technology		overhead and projectors, but most projectors document write on the board;	are the most com-mon in order to display any Power-
			Some science classes	Point slides or
			project diagrams; Use	diagrams. Most
			of	interactive	material is still
			whiteboards is not common in most schools	written on the board. Some Math classes do use
					PowerPoint slides,
					but that is not
					common.
	Style	of	Lecture is common;	Primary Lec-
	Instruction		science labs are at	ture, labs/recitation

Table 3 .

 3 Student User Analysis.

	Factor		Pre-College Students	College Students
	Age		In general, typical age	Typically 18 and
			for grade -M i d d l e	older
			School: 11-14, High
			School: 14-18
	Cognitive		Generally	able	to	High enough to enroll
	Developme	complete grade level	in university, even
	nt		work or greater, though	though some remedial
			some remediation may	classes	may	be
			exist			needed
	Visual		Visual acuity of 20/200-20/800
	Acuity
	Experience	Visual impairment may be from birth or very
	with Own	recent; may be stale or progressive
	Visual
	Impairment
	Experience	More experience with laptops is likely, many in
	with		college have experience with smartphones
	Tablets,		(iPhone in particular)
	Laptops, or
	Smartphon
	es
	Accommod	Longer test time, use of aids to view class
	ations	in	material are most common
	Class
	Use	of	CCTV,	handheld	CCTV,	handheld
	Assistive		magnifier,	l a p t o p ,	magnifier,	laptop,
	Technology	enlarged/large print and	large	print	and
			electronic	course	electronic	course
			materials are most	materials, in class
			common			note takers are most
						common
	Common		Not able to discern	Not able to discern
	Difficulties	material on the board,	material on the board,
	in Class
	Preferences	Is portable, fits in	Is portable, fits in
	for System	backpack, accessibility	backpack,
			features	can	be	lightweight,	long
			selected, can be used at	battery	life,
			home, does not make	customized
			student stand out with	accessibility feature
			peers.			(fonts,	substitute
						colors)
	Frequency	Nearly every class meeting; sees possible use in
	of Use of	other courses as well.
	AL/M	in
	class

  At minimum, complete step 1.1. Steps 1.2 through 1.4 are optional, where steps 1.2 and 1.3 can be completed in any order. If step 1.4 is completed, it is last. Plan 1.1: Step 1.1.1 is required to whatever depth the instructor wishes. Steps 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 are optional. If the multiple steps are completed, order is not important. Plan 2: Step 2.1 is usually completed first and often repeated at the end of class. Steps 2.2 is optional, but if completed is usually completed next. Step 2.3 is next, optionally interrupted by the optional steps 2.4 and 2.5. Complete 1.1 first. Complete steps 2 and 3 where possible. Steps 4 -6 are optional, and are completed depending on how class is conducted (step 5 and 6) and if student feels comfortable asking a question (step 4). If a note taker is used, complete step 7 after class (most likely). If an in-class aide is writing down the lecture material in front of the student in a large font, step 3 will be easier. Plan 1: Steps 1.1 and 1.3 are optional. Complete step 1.2.

	1.4. Post Slides or Notes to Course Webpage Plan 0:
	2. During Class
	2.1. Make class announcements or reminders
	2.2. Go over questions from homework
	2.3. Present course material, while speaking
	2.3.1. Writing on board
	2.3.1.1. Left to right, top to bottom across all contiguous boards
	2.3.1.2. Left to right, top to bottom on each board, before moving across
	to the next one
	2.3.1.3. Erase material.
	2.3.2. Projecting diagram and writing on it
	2.3.3. Drawing diagram
	2.4. Conduct a quiz or in-class activity
	2.5. Answer questions from students
	3. After Class, post slides or notes to course webpage
	Plan 0: Do steps 1, 2, and 3 in that order
	Plan 1: Plan 2.3: Steps 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 are completed in any order and to the degree
	needed by the instructor for a given class meeting.
	Plan 2.3.1: Style can be any combination of 2.3.1.1 or 2.3.1.2, though it is usually one
	or the other. Do step 2.3.1.3 as needed to correct mistakes or for space needs.
	The counterpart to the teacher's perspective is the student perspective, shown below:
	0. Attend Lecture (Student)
	1. Setup
	1.1. Place course text on desk
	1.2. Place note taking materials on desk
	1.3. Setup assistive technology (e.g. CCTV, magnifier, etc.)
	2. Listen to lecture and write down notes, mark information that is particularly
	important (for review) 0. Conveying Material (Educator) 3. View lecture and write down notes, mark information that is particularly 1. Before Class important (for review) 1.1. Preparing Lecture Notes with Text, Formulae, Diagrams 4. Ask questions 1.1.1. Lecture Material 5. Take quiz 1.1.2. Course Announcements 6. Work with partner/team on in-class activity 1.1.3. Quiz or Activity Questions 1.2. Preparing PowerPoint slides or Diagram 7. Pick up notes from note taker
	1.3. Prepare Class Handouts

Acknowledgment

Thank you to the CRA (Computing Research Association) for supporting Alex Canter and Lindsey Ellis' efforts as part of the CREU (Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates) program. This project also receives support from the National Science Foundation (Award # IIS-1218801)