Workshop requirements

The three sets of HLRs and related specifications are reported in Table 6.1. Some requirements were the same or analogous across the three teams; others were unique to only one team.

Table 6.1: The three sets of HLRs and related specifications for each workshop team.

To appreciate the extent of similarity and difference across teams, we categorised them in three lists: requirements that were analogous or the same across the three teams (List A), requirements that differed across the three teams (List B), and requirements that were analogous or the same across only two teams (List C).

Similar requirements considerations across the three teams (List A)

All the three teams established that the device must be positioned on the least intrusive and least reachable body location for the cat. This was specified to be near the shoulder blades or at the base of the neck by both computer scientists and biologists, since this is a spot that cannot be groomed, and is in fact where veterinarians apply spot-on antiparasitic solutions. Cat carers were not so specific; nevertheless, in accordance with the other two teams, they ended up crafting a collar, which would embed the electronic components and keep it exactly near the designated area. Both computer scientists and biologists also proposed a second kind of attachment; respectively a hair-catching mesh and a hair clip to be positioned on the cat’s shoulder blades (i.e. position is consistent with the above). However, in the end, both teams chose a collared solution, due to the difficulty of pulling the hair through the mesh holes in one case, and to the potential unreliability of a clip’s attachment to the fur in the other instance.

All three teams established that:

The overall device (i.e. electronic components and collar) should be as light as possible and blend in with the animal’s fur colour to minimise its intrusiveness and visibility; it should be easily released in the case of wearers getting entangled and somehow easily retrievable if lost.

The collar itself should be made of flexible material and have a soft texture to provide comfortability, and its width should be narrow to minimise intrusiveness; it should wrap around a thin protecting case that contains the electronic components (i.e. batteries, tracking and charging unit, wires) so as to maintain comfortability qualities to the overall device.

The electronic components should be narrow and thin, and their outward protrusion should be minimal to minimise height and width of the overall device; hence, they should be oriented along the collar line and be distributed along the collar line. Also, they should have no inward protrusions so as not to poke the neck of the animal. The electronic units and batteries should be physically connected through some conductive material (wires, conductive ink or tape) that maintains the elasticity and flexibility of the device.

In terms of specifications derived from the more general HLRs, in some cases, they were the same among teams. For example, all designers agreed that the electronics had to be aligned end-to-end, and that the collar had to be black and white to accord with the fur of the dummy cat that was used to represent the cat persona during the workshops. In other instances, the specifications were different though obtained from the same HLRs. For example, a soft material was specified as synthetic fur textile by the computer scientists, fabric or leather by the biologists, and silicone by the cat carers.

Different requirements considerations across the three teams (List B) Some requirements were accounted for differently across the three teams:

Although all the three teams established that the device should be easily released in case of wearers getting entangled, its detachability was a quality discussed differently across them. The computer scientists accounted for the importance of making the device detachable precisely for safety reasons; hence, their device was stretchy and easy to pull off the neck. The biologists thought that, for habituating the wearer to its presence, the device should be left in place as much as possible, but they also acknowledged the fact that cat guardians might need to easily detach and reattach the collar. For the cat carers too, keeping the collar attached all the time was a way of reducing its intrusiveness. Their assumption was that the collar would become part of the body and the animal would get used to it more easily than if it was periodically put on and taken off. However, the cat carers meant the device to never be detached, not even for charging purposes. At the same time, though, both biologists and

cat carers identified a safety requirement that would be met by a release mechanism that would open the collar and free the cat in case of entanglement.

With respect to the fastening method and adjustability of the collar, the computer scientists considered these in relation to the potential impact that the device might have by scratching or chafing the skin, or pull the cat’s hair; hence, they avoided the use of Velcro strips or buckles and opted instead for a unique piece of close-fitting elasticated fabric that stretches to fit the neck. The biologists considered the need for the collar to be easy to attach, so they chose to use standard cat-collar buckles, while the cat carers prioritised the need for making the collar adjustable to the cat’s neck size, thus opting for Velcro or clasps.

The cat carers addressed the problem of obtaining good aerial reception proposing to use a built-in thread antenna extended all around the collar. They also proposed to enhance the tracker with modular adds-on so that the collar could be personalised to (human) user functional requirements and thus make the device more sellable. They were the only team to think about these matters.

The biologists were the only team to establish that light spectra and osmic material should be avoided, on the grounds that the first aspect may negatively affect camouflage and the second one may irritate the sensitive cat’s sense of smell.

Similar requirements considerations across only two teams (List C)

Distributing chargeable wireless stations around the cat’s living spaces for charging batteries was considered a way to decrease the size and weight of the electronic components by both the computer scientists and the cat carers; in this scenario, power units would be recharged every time the animal rested near lead-up spots, thus reducing the possibility that the device would run out of energy and in turn enabling the use of smaller battery components. Instead, the biologists looked at the exchangeability of batteries and therefore at the need to easily remove them from the collar for charging purposes.

The need to avoid emissions in the form of sound frequencies was considered by both the computer scientists and the biologists. The biologists also included ultra and infrasound in their considerations.

Both the biologists and the cat carers established that a device should be inconspicuous for other animals interacting with the wearer, with the cat carers also specifying that for this reason reflective material should be avoided.

Table 6.2 summarises the wearability requirements belonging to each list. List A – Similar requirements considerations across the three teams

- Device positioned on the least intrusive/reachable body location - Device as light as possible

- Device blend in with the animal’s fur colour - Device easily released in case of entanglement - Device easily retrievable if lost

- Collar made of flexible material and having soft texture - Collar width should be narrow

- Collar should wrap around a thin protecting case - Electronics narrow and thin

- Outward protrusion should be minimal

- Electronics oriented / distributed along collar line - No inward protrusion

- Electronics physically connected

List B - Different requirements considerations across the three teams - Detachability

- Designers in computing: collar easily pull off if entangled - Biologists: easy to attach collar (for usability)

- Cat carers: never detaching the collar - Fastening method / adjustability

- Designers in computing: unique piece of elastic fabric - Biologists: buckle

- Cat carers: adjustable Velcro or clasp - Aerial: threadlike (from cat carers)

List C - Similar requirements considerations across only two teams - Charging method

- Designers in computing + cat carers: wirelessly - Biologists: batteries exchangeable

- Sound frequencies

- Designers in computing + biologists: to be avoided - Cat carers: not mentioned

Table 6.2: Wearability requirements established by the three teams of designers divided into lists.