1. Design Review Red Light Green Light Team: The Imagineers

2. Project Focus Create an obstacle course for the kids at Clark Red Light Green light: What is it? - Escape course - Students answer questions to reach safe zone - Pass the three stages to exit the course Possible themes - Spy, Spongebob - Can work with multiple themes ★ Our team will work together to create an obstacle both physically and mentally stimulating for Clark kids

3. The Obstacle - Sketches ★ Drawing out sketches allows us to visualize our design as it’s projected to look

4. Key Objectives of the Obstacle ● Stimulate the kids mentally and physically ● Easy enough for the kids to understand either intuitively or with a small set of instructions ● Majority of kids should find the obstacle appealing and fun ● Be safe ● Remain in the budget ($100) ● Uses sensors to enhance the course ★ Highlighting our goals allow us to stay on track with our project design

5. Why did we choose this idea? ● More positive feedback from kids at Clark- fun! ● More flexibility with theme ● Easier to build, maintain ● More mentally engaging ● More familiarity with the concept of the game ★ This design follows our objectives and design/functional requirements the best and we believe kids will get more out of it than our other idea

6. Functional Requirements Allow for a child to pass through Communicates a question Allows a child to enter/exit the obstacle Detects movement on false statements Notifies child when they move on false statement Provide enough space for running/taking steps ★ Detailing the general function of our design allows us to determine methods of achieving those functions

7. Design Requirements Accommodate 1-2 kids at a time (if 2, both kids must work together and move at the same time) Take no less than 1 minute to complete and no more than 2 minutes Provide questions that cater to different age ranges (1 st and 4 th grade) Easy to transport to and from Clark ★ The design requirements set details for our design to adhere to

8. Design Requirements More constraints: - Must not contain any rough surfaces, sharp edges, or hazardous loose parts - Budget to construct must not exceed 100 dollars ★ Specifying the “don’t”s of our design makes weeding through bad alternatives easier

9. Alternatives Considered

10. Alternative - Zig Zag Path

11. Alternative - Other Zig Zag

12. Alternative - U-shaped Path For these 3 paths... Why? -More compact design -Change from normal straight design Why not? -Multiple displays -Safety (sharp corners, hard to see kids at all times ★ U-Shaped Path is not ideal because of confusion with multiple displays and safety

13. Alternative - Question Format Originally we planned to have multiple choice questions. Then we changed it to a True/False format. Why we decided against it… 1) The time the kids would be waiting to hear the answers would be longer 2) The probability a kid would get the right answer is less likely ★ True/False is a better option than multiple choice because it keeps their attention and maximizes success

14. 3D Inventor of Prototype ★ Our design is easily displayed with dimensions

15. Small-Scale Prototype Scaled down model of project ★ Shape of path is determined to be a straight line

16. Number of Circuit Boards ● Tested whether one circuit board could be used for 2 sensors ● Maximum distance stretched: 50 inches ● Both sensors would detect movement at once ● 50 inches is too close - sensors must be placed farther apart ● One circuit board must be used per sensor ★ 3 circuit boards will be used

17. Maximum Range Prototype Tested the range of the motion sensors Results: Sensor picks up motion 4 and 6 feet away; course will be 5 feet wide Range for 4 feet: 42 inches Range for 6 feet: 51 inches ★ An appropriate range for each sensor is determined based on distance directly away from sensor.

18. Cardstock Prototype Used 0.5 inches of cardstock on either side of the sensor in case range needs to be limited. Range at 4 feet: 26 inches Range at 6 feet: 43 inches ★ Limiting the range is possible if needed.

19. Prototyping Effect on Final Design We were able to determine from prototyping… ● The shape - straight path ● The dimensions - 26 ft by 5 ft ● The layout ● Space between the motion sensors - 6 feet ● Alteration to the motion sensor to affect range - ½ inch cardboard sticks out ★ Many details were gained from prototyping, mainly the measurable dimensions of the obstacle

20. User Experience 1. Child steps up to the starting line 2. A fact is communicated 3. Timer starts for 5 seconds (appx.) once the fact is read 4. Child runs when fact is true, stays still if fact is false 5. Repeat for the remaining two checkpoints 6. Once the end is reached, student hits the button and escapes! ★ Students take part in an escape adventure

21. Current Progress ● Writing questions for both first and fourth grade ● Figuring out details of design (aesthetics that follow a theme?) ● Prototyping - Motion sensor range - Path layout - Inventor sketches of distances between checkpoints ● Material analysis ★ We are currently working on figuring out budget, materials, and question content

22. Material Analysis Provided: 1. Monitors/projector 2. Wood for sensor posts 3. Sensors, processor 4. Speakers 5. Foam ★ We know what materials are needed for our obstacle. Materials to be bought: 1. Duct Tape(x2 or 3) 2. Fabric 3. Button Very economical!

23. Future Plans ● More prototyping - Motion sensor and it’s connection to the question - Construction materials (cost vs. stability) - Entrance and exit style - Success rate of our questions with kids ● Budget (once materials are finalized) ● Details: - ex: Decide how the “cameras” are being held up ★ In the future, we plan to finalize budget, and logistics of the design

24. Questions? Please ask!