Spraoi Phase 2 Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, 7th December 2011

Wednesday, 7th December 2011

Meeting Main Points

• Game flow-chart on the way
• Group charter on the way.
• Games will  have both a progressive storyline and a standalone version.
• Who is our user? Feedback from Conor O'Reilly (COR) on the way.
• Target audience? Probably 1st/2nd class.

Next Meeting Date

• TBD but in the next few days

Next Meeting Location

• TBD but provisionally: Java City, DIT Aungier St.

Today's Meeting Attendees

• Stephen Breslin (SB), Norah Ward (NW), Frank Whelan (FW)

Discussions

• Charter:
  Need a Group Charter but does not need to be a replica of Charter from Design Principles module. We will tailor it to our needs. SB to do, before next meeting
  
• Storyline:
  Spraoi storyline: should it be progressive or not? Should the game consist of a story which progresses though levels or chapter which could span days, months, full school year? should each chapter be a standalone task or game. A progressive storyline would be harder to implement thank standalone chapters/tasks. A standalone-based game may not be ass good though. Survey results indicated a 13 v's 7 weighting towards a progressive storyline. Both options is probably the best approach. FW suggested a standalone task/chapter which could be book-ended with a narrative outlining some context and background to help link preceding/following chapters. Aspects of the task could be relevant to both users - e.g. central character needs to perform storyline task to cross a bridge. This is a standalone task but given context, this unit task could be part of a larger line, e.g. he is on his way to the land of Far Far Away. Or Mordor, or whatever.
  
• Use existing characters?
  Suggested by survey respondents. Copyright issues. Also, a selling point could be our own new character.
  
• Target demographic
  Aim at 1st and 2nd class pupils or the entire primary school (i.e. from 1st to 6th class)? SB suggested perhaps game could have 20 chapters spread over all school years? Storyline progresses and becomes more complex when it is aimed at older pupils. FW & NW thought the scope would be too large. Our prototype will be aimed at 1st/2nd class pupils. But will we design (at least at a high level) for all years but implement our prototype/draft for 1st/2nd class pupils? NW pointed out our original idea was to be based on a curriculum and each year has a different curriculum so designing for all years would be beyond the scope of the project.
• Will need to address the  valid question of "why 1st/2nd class?"

• Positive: Easier to implement. We have time constraints. these pupils are an entrance point to the interactive white board game market. Use the experience and feedback to then develop similar games for older pupils.

• Negative: Smaller market. Overall Irish primary school market is already small. Schools might want a full package they can deploy to all classes.

• Interesting: More time to develop a better product. Older kids will be jealous of the younger kids having all the fun!

• Who is our user? Teacher or pupil?
  NW e-mailed Conor O'Reilly for some feedback on this. Response to be discussed at next meeting. NW to do.
• Device Affordances
  SB to call to primary school and investigate Promethean & e-beam boards in use. SB to do.

Decisions

• Games will need a login to enable class and team names/score be recorded. Could be used for a scoreboard/leader-board.
• This will be a team game (prob 2 students, based on teacher feedback)
• Progressive and standalone options for play.
• Rewards given to pupils. Maybe sound-based? Leader-board is also a reward in itself.

Assigned Actions

• Basic flow-chart of game. FW to do.
• Write Group Charter based on Principles template. SB to do.
• Look at requirements template. All to do.

Status of Outstanding Actions from Previous Minutes

• Design Read Group Charter - done
• Upload existing research to blog - done
• Analysis of user - we analysed the survey results. Some ambiguity on who our user is. Awaiting feedback on this from COR
• Process answers, highlight recurring themes - done
• Establish required functionality - not done

Agenda for Next Meeting

• TBD

---