Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii, ProgressReport 12.16.2014

Ivan, Iurii, Rene, Enrique

Progress Report#6

Prof. Belli



The week from 12/09/2014-12/16/2014 was a time period when we all have put our work together and really looked it once more as a full collection of the items we have done in past two months. During this week we mostly have tried to organize and reorganize every item in such way that it will be a write up/report of our final and finest quality.

Some of the highlights:


  • We have worked together to really make a write up as a sum up of our work. Synchronously during the meeting it took a lot of time to digest the suggestion from the professor and really implement them as well adding our own voices to the report. Nevertheless, we have worked separately as well to complete the work faster. Each of us has done researches and great amount of work.
  • We have as well collected all of the usability testing notes together and wrote an informative part on it about how the game was met in the “real world” playing condition with kids.
  • Ivan has provided an introduction and has put all of the content together and formatted it in the single coherent document, with all of the organisational and professional norms.
  • Enrique has written parts of the report about the game mechanics, it’s electrical base and researched to make our writing more accessible for people that are not familiar with the highest professional terms.
  • Rene has written all parts bout design and safety of the game. He researched to make the game build quality well crafted and as well make it not expensive and, most importantly, safe for children.
  • Iurii has been working on the annotated bibliography proper formatting and all of the citations and MLA formatting related activities. He as well has done a conclusion and wrapped everything up.
  • We all as well have worked on the presentation, which is also due. We have mainly edited previous presentation slides and included more up to date information and renovated data.


Overall the progress of this week was great. We have crafted our old materials and made everything coherent.

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii, Meeting Minutes 12.16.2014


Meeting minutes       12/12/2014

8:30 PM – 10:00 PM

Attendees (Skype)


Ivan Kelemen, Iurii Druchuk, Enrique Bisono, Rene Alcon



Ivan Kelemen




  • Discuss the final manuals
  • Talk about what we went over with, with the professor about the final write up
  • Talk about revising fun facts and question cards



  • The first order of business was to look over the final manuals and discuss them. We looked them over to see if they included everything we wanted in them. We went back and decided to add more information to the manuals because, the more you have for the teacher to work with the better.
  • Next we talked about what we went over with, with the professor during the group meeting. It was clear that we had to reorganize the essay and cut it into different parts. We decided on a new outline that included and intro, the two different aspects of the design, the hardware, the playtesting and a conclusion.
  • Lastly we talked about the final version of the facts and question cards. Once that was done we ended the meeting and went to work.





After a long meeting we ended at 10 PM

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii, Agenda 12.16.2014

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii


Prof. Belli



Agenda for the meeting on 12/12/2014:


  • Discuss the final manuals
  • Clearly distinguish between teacher/student manuals.
  • Evaluate suggestions from the professor about the final write up.
  • Devise the work on the final write up edition.
  • Talk about the ways of reorganization and revision of final write up.
  • Talk about how to revise fun facts and question cards



Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii_MeetingMinutes5(12-3-14)


Meeting minutes       12/03/2014

12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, 2:15 PM – 3:15 PM


Attendees (Class, in person)

Ivan Kelemen, Rene Alcon, Iurii Druchuk, Enrique Bisono


Ivan Kelemen


  • Discuss outline for manuals
  • Talk about outline for write up after professor explained what it should contain
  • Assign final project parts
  • Talk about revising “fun facts”


  • During class and then later in the meeting we had outside of class we discussed the outlines for the two separate manuals. Based on the suggestion the professor made we will have to make a few small tweaks. Ivan will revise the rules, while iurii and Rene work on the layout for the manuals from the outline we have made. After that is done Enrique will provide images of the materials and show how they are set up. That will complete the manuals and we can work on more important things.
  • Based on what the professor talked about in class, we decided on the outline for the write up we have to hand in at the end of the semester. We made an outline for it and decided how we want to approach it. we will spend the first two days ( Thursday / Friday ) gathering all the information (research) we need from our research file, then we will write it up using our outline.
  • We decided to split up the work for the write up and then come together to edit the parts in. Ivan will handle the introduction, background information and the general setup of the the paper. Next Enrique will talk about materials and the operation in the game, while also providing “question cards” for the game. Rene will talk about building the game and the design of it, why we made the decisions we made in regard to those things. Finally Iurii will do the conclusion and fun fact cards. He will bring out paper together. Besides this, we will all use research that we found and also all together work on the bibliography.
  • Lastly we talked about fixing the fun facts based on the suggestion the professor made. We will turn the wording of the cards down and make the language easier for kids to understand. Using this suggestion we will also do this with the question cards. We plan to have a term definition in the rule section so they can refer to it if they don’t understand something.



We met twice today. First we met in class and worked during the class time from about 12:30 PM until 2 PM when class ended. Then we all separated for a quick lunch and again met at 2:15 PM until 3:15 PM.


Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii_Agendа#5 12-03-2014

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii


Prof. Belli


Agenda for the meetings on 12/03/2014:


  • Discuss outline for the manuals (teacher and children)
  • Decide about the outline of the final write-up
  • Talk about suggestions from the professor
  • Decide on the parts of the final report
  • Labor division
  • Revision of fun facts, questions, flashcards.


Some thoughts for the next meetings:

  • Meeting with the professor
  • Gather suggestions from peer review groups and from professor
  • Talk about revision accordingly.

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii_ProgressReport5(12-3-14)

Ivan, Iurii, Rene, Enrique

Progress Report#5

Prof. Belli



During the week of 12/2/2014-12/9/2014 our group acted as it was planned and settled in our previous meetings in class and afterwards. We have set a goal to finish the first draft of the final write-up, and that is what we have been doing this week.


Some of the key highlights:

  • During class we have talked with the professor and derived some suggestions, which would make our deliverables better. These were, suggestions about the “fan facts”/flashcards, to make them easier to perceive for children, simplify and modify them accordingly. Also we have been informed about the appendix section and clarified what to include there. So after some tweaking we have simplified the questions and facts.
  • As it was planned we have spent  few days on the manuals gathering all the necessary images and research. We have all worked on its layout and Rene and Enrique have provided images for the steps and rules which were revised and written by Ivan.
  • We also composed an outline for our project report. Making it simpler for as to organise all the different components.
  • After the outline was ready, we were working on it, filling all of the parts. Ivan has done the introduction, Enrique wrote the part about design and how the game works, as well Rene has provided explicit details about the game structure and build of the game, while Iurii wrapped all of the parts together in the conclusion explaining the research and the purpose of the game.
  • After all, we have came together in a single google document to edit and enhance everything together. The first draft of the report was given to the professor today.


As we have finished with the week, we have mostly worked on the write up paper and all of its components. Moreover, we were working on the previous parts, such as: Researches and annotated bibliography, fun facts. We now have in mind the revision and professionalizing of our deliverables: manuals, rules, instruction, the final write up.


Agenda for 11/19/2014 Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii

Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii


Prof. Belli



Agenda for the class on 11/19/2014:


Decided today:


  • Consult with Prof. Belli, questions
  • Clarify about research part
  • Discuss deliverables in terms of look and parts(rules/manual/instruction)
  • Set up the most valid dimensions
  • Decide presentation order and type
  • When the next meeting is going to be


Next week decisions

  • Prototype building
  • Oversee possible issues and come with resolutions
  • Bring together all of the manual parts
  • Work on the research implementation

Meeting Minutes 11/19/2014 Ivan Kelemen, Rene Alcon, Iurii Druchuk, Enrique Bisono


Meeting minutes fro day:        11/19/2014Time: 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM


Attendees (in class)

Ivan Kelemen, Rene Alcon, Iurii Druchuk, Enrique Bisono


Iurii Druchuk


  • Consult with Prof. Belli
  • Discuss deliverables in terms of look and parts(rules/manual/instruction)
  • Set up the most valid dimensions
  • Decide presentation order and type

During the Meeting

  • As we talked with the professor, Ivan has presented most of the deliverables for the next class, and for the final result. Rene have introduced the sketches and brought up the rules that we have so far laid out. While Enrique stated about our safety solutions and suggested that we are going to use safe materials. Ivan as well, introduced the clear-transparent plastic glass, which is really meant to make the game look better and safer. Iurii had a question about the final deliverables, he asked “how strict should the format of the manual should be?” and Prof. Belli explained that it should be in two formats, one a booklet, which is going in the box, and the other is actual manual, which consists of our research, glossary, instructions for the teachers and for students separately.
  • During the consultation and afterwards we have agreed to write two sets of instruction, one for kids and the other for teachers, in order to make it clear for our users in both categories.
  • As well the professor suggested that we should include some research facts into our final project, therefore Iurii has suggested to use the facts in a fan way, maybe make some fun relations or jokes related to the facts like “hey, did you know how much ice cream can buy an electrical engineer for his salary?” and some similar funny facts to engage kids, and just try to give them something that they will be truly interested in.
  • Afterwards, we got together and resolved some issues about design. We have stumbled across the dimensions of the game, how wide and tall it should be. Since outer panels of our game are going to wrap around the main electric components, Enrique stated basic dimensions, and basically, we came up that our game will has to fit three compartments for battery, breadboards, and wires. After Enrique will make a basic inner layout of all of the electric parts, he said that he will send them to Rene, and Rene will set the dimensions for the outer panels of the game.
  • Ivan suggested that while meeting next time, probably Tuesday, we would try our basic prototype and we will go from there further on.  Rene suggested that we should meet on Tuesday, on which we all agreed.
  • After agreeing on the next meeting date Ivan brought up the presentations and that we should each talk and present our part, however, in a collaborative manner work together in the google drive to make all part contextual. For that part Ivan suggested that we could use a PowerPoint or a google slides for this part. So we have decided that Ivan will present first and introduce all of the work, deliverables and subjects of our manual, Enrique will be second and talk about the “heart” of the game, which is electrics, then Rene, will introduce basic design and more detailed sketches, afterwards Iurii is going to introduce research materials and how they are going to be interpreted so that it will fun for kids.




As the class ended at 2:00pm we left satisfied with the discussion. Each of us had clear understanding of what he should do and what are next goals for the group. On the next meeting we will most likely work with physical prototype and manuals.

Aim for the next week: Ivan, Rene, Enrique, Iurii.

Agenda for the next week:

Discuss in depth all of the project details :

Making our ideas come to life through.

For that we are going to determine a more detailed layout of the game and its design.

For now size of the board-game is determined to be 12 by 8 in and about 3 in depth.

Before the next class we have to do:

Prepare materials: cardboard or clear plastic(we will have to research about this), resistors, LED lights, wires, battery, breadboard.

Get breadboards, which is the main core of the game, and determine how many of them we need to use


All of the design aspects, size and material use will be tested in the next week, and adjusted in accordance to our discussions and progress.

We are going to figure out the rules for the game, as well as the very first draft manual of how to put the game together, in case people wish to make it themselves. We will discuss how to make the manual clear and accessible for adults and for kids.

Afterwards, during our next meeting, we will do the actual game itself, try to assemble it with prepared materials and manuals.

Summary of “The Flight From Conversation”. Iurii Druchuk.

Sherry Turkle through her article “The Flight From Conversation” discusses how humans choose to communicate through technology rather than communicating through conversations. People are “alone together”(Page 1), they are focusing at the same time on many connections, which leads them to the dissociation of themselves from others. The author makes examples of how various individuals of different casts, social layers, and all ages willingly replace conversations by connections through innovations and technology. Sherry Turkle claims that connections give flexibility and customization, however, they make people lonely and fake, connections delude humans; she argues, “they do not substitute for conversations”(Page 2). The author gives strategies of how people can integrate conversations into their lives. She argues that it is necessary for humans to communicate through real life conversations rather than through innovative connections.



1. Turkle Sherry, “The Flight From Conversation”, published April 21,2012.