RoboFesta Research Laboratory
Faculty of Technology
The Open University
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, England
23rd March 2001
RoboFesta is an international movement founded in Japan to encourage young people to participate in science and technology through robotics events, and to inform the general public on the place of robotics in the modern world. RoboFesta-Europe was founded in May 2000. At the same time members of the Open University convened RoboFesta-UK. The first major event of RoboFesta-Europe is to take a group of European children to participate in RoboFesta in Japan in 2001, in preparation for a year long festival of robotics which will take place throughout Europe in 2004. The RoboFesta-UK Committee decided that the best way to select its four children to go to Japan was to collaborate with the famous BBC children’s television programme Blue Peter which reaches an audience of three million children every week. The Blue Peter – RoboFesta Robot Design Competition was launched on 15th January 2001, and over 32,000 robot designs were submitted. This report is a record of that competition and illustrates some of the wide range of designs submitted.
Acknowledgements. This competition was a great success thanks to a lot of work by a lot of people. We would like to thank our main contact at the BBC, Anne Dixon, for everything she did to make things work so well. We would also like to thank Gillian $$$ for all her help in judging the 32,000 designs. We are grateful to Steve Hocking, producer of Blue Peter, for welcoming us into the programme. Too many to mention by name, we are grateful to the Blue Peter presenters, the production teams, and everyone else at the BBC who joined in this project with such enthusiasm. Closer to home, we would like to thank Andy Taylor, our Dean of Technology, who made the whole thing possible by giving it his backing at the beginning. We are also grateful to Jenny Wright, Margaret Barnes, and Dierdre Bethune who helped in many ways as the project unfolded. Our colleagues in the Department of Design and Innovation made many helpful technical suggestions, especially Pejman Iravani, Steve Garner and Sally Boyle who created some of the first illustrative designs. Thanks also go to Kevin Quick who maintained our website during this busy time (http.www.robofesta-europe.org). Last, but not least, we thank the children, their mums, dads, and other supporting adults who sent us those wonderful thirty two thousand designs.
1. Introduction
RoboFesta is an international movement founded in Japan to encourage young people to participate in science and technology through robotics events, and to inform the general public on the place of robotics in the modern world. RoboFesta-Europe was founded in May 2000. RoboFesta-UK was formed at the same time, and has an advisory committee of academics, teachers, and other experts from all over the Britain. RoboFesta-UK is hosted by us at the Open University. RoboFesta 2001 will take place in Japan this year, and RoboFesta-Europe will take place in 2004.
The first project of RoboFesta-Europe is to take a group of European children to participate in RoboFesta in Japan in November 2001. The RoboFesta-UK Committee decided that the best way to select its four children to go to Japan was to collaborate with the famous BBC children’s television programme Blue Peter. This programme is something of a national institution in Britain. It is viewed by three million children per week all over Britain. It started in 1956, and generations of British children have enjoyed its magazine format which often includes designing and making things. During the three weeks of our competition it had articles on an animal sanctuary, motor rallying, table tennis, a brass band, disco dancing and, of course, designing robots.
The Blue Peter – RoboFesta Robot Design Competition was launched on 15th January 2001 in a studio feature that included a short film on ‘serious’ robots, as well as a studio visit by the well-known robot screen stars C3PO of Star Wars and K9 of Dr Who. The closing data was 6th February 2001. First, second, and third prizes were awarded in the three age group, seven years and under, eight to ten years, and eleven to fifteen years. An additional first prize was awarded to the winner of those children making online submission by email. The third, second, and first prize winners all received a painting set supplied by Windsor and Newton, featuring a special ‘Blue Peter blue’. The second and first prize winners all received a Mindstorms Robotics Invention kit supplied by LEGO. The winners also received a Vision Command camera allowing their robots to see. The four first-prize winners also won a trip to Japan with an accompanying adult to participate in RoboFesta in November 2001.
The children were challenged to design a really useful robot. We wanted the children to be creative and focus their energies on something constructive, in contrast to the robot wars genre of programmes which is very popular on television in Britain, and been very successful in interesting millions of all ages in robots and robotics. We wanted to build on this interest, as well as widening it by encouraging the children to think about robots which could make a positive contribution to human life.
The children were instructed to tell us what the robot does (specification) and how it does it (analysis). They were also encouraged to come up with designs ‘that could really work’ (evaluation). This reflected our educational agenda of helping the children to understand better the nature of design, within the limitations of a fast-moving TV programme.
Figure 1. A TeacherBot.
About 40% of all the children designed what we called humanoid robots with mouths, eyes, and arms. This TeacherBot has eyes in the back of its head! Many of the 32,000 designs submitted had witty and innovative behaviour, making them great fun to judge. (designer: James Ireland, aged 8 )
The children were shown a sheet of A4 paper and told to use one or two sheets of this size. Although most children conformed to this requirement, many designs were drawn on larger sheets of paper, and some on scraps of paper torn from notebooks. Some children even sent in cardboard models! All the designs were considered in the judging. In the on-line version of the competition thechildren were invited to create their designs on a computer and submit them design by email.
Over 32,000 robot designs were submitted across the three age groups, 7 and under, 8 – 10 years, and 11 – 15 years. Approximate proportions were 25%, 50%, 25%. About 400 designs were submitted in our on-line class via the Internet. The purpose of this report is to provide information about the competition, and to illustrate some of the huge number and wide range of designs we received.
Figure 2. Many of the children took enormous care over their design, making them works of art. This picture illustrates this, but it is also a serious and well-annotated design. As with so many of the designs, this has delightful details such as the bag of clubs slung over the shoulder. (designer: Tom Nicklin, aged 13).
2. Illustrative Robots
In order to give the children an idea of what we expected, we produced a number of designs ourselves. These were shown in the studio and on the Blue Peter website. One of these was a ‘Litter Crab’ (Figure 3). The idea here was that a small spider-like robot would scuttle around a room looking for small pieces of litter. These would stick to a litter ball and be deposited in a bag. When the bag was full, the robot would scuttle home, and wait for the owner to replace the bag. The design communicates to the children that we expect them to draw their robot, and to annotate the drawing. It was also intended to suggest that conventional problems may have unconventional solutions
Figure 3. An illustrative design: the Litter Crab (Designer: Steve Garner, Open University )
Another illustrative design was for ARC, the Advanced Robotic Cleaner. The idea here was that a robotic hand would move around a bicycle to clean it. This is quite a complex mechanical idea, which again is communicated by an annotated drawing.
Other illustrative designs included a robot that washes and sets your hair, and a robot that helps you climb a tree. These too were annotated drawings.
Figure 4. An illustrative Design: ARC – the Advanced Robotic Cleaner (Designer: Steve Garner, OU)
Figure 5. The Sony dog, Aibo, which appeared live on the programme.
The Blue Peter programme that announced the competition on 15th January 2001 had an article tracing
the history of robotics. It used library footage of Mable, a speculative housemaid robot sixties, and other robots. In particular it featured the Sony dog robot, AIBO, which children love (Figure 5). The programme also showed some small fun robots that we supplied (Figure 6).
(a) JST Beetle
( b ) Walker
(c) Footballer
Figure 6. Some of the small fun robots that appeared on the Blue Peter programme
3. Emergent Classes of Forms in the Designs
As we worked through judging the 32,000 designs, a clear morphology emerged. The great majority of designs could be classed as one or more of Humanoid, DomeBot, SpiderBot, TrackedBot, PetBot, and BoxBot ( Figure 7). We also noted that some designs were wedge-shaped, presumably inspired by their prevalence and success on the Robot Wars television programme.
|
|
| a) Humanoid ( @ 40%) | (b) DomeBot (@ 10%) |
 |
 |
| c) PetBot (@ 10%) | d) SpiderBot (@ 10%) |
 |
 |
| e) BoxBot | f) TrackBot |
Figure 7. Classes of robot forms dominating the entries
Of course there were many exceptions, and some designs were very innovative in their form. Of the the humanoid robots, many of them were designed to perform typically human activities. However, the children were free to pick the task for their robot, and this problem-seeking activity lead to them identifying a great many functional roles. Within all the forms the robot designs had a wide variety of functions, as illustrated in Table 1.
| Bookshelf Tidier | Fruit Bowl | Security |
| Ballerina | Gardener | Seamstress |
| Bully Councillor | Homework Doer | Self-Filing Cabinet |
| Child Minder | Kitchen Help | Shopper |
| Clown | Make-up Artist | SportsBot |
| Clothes Washer | Nurse | Space Explorer Friend |
| Coconut Picker | Painter-Decorator | Swimming Lifeguard |
| Dancer | Pet Cleaner | Teacher |
| Deaf & Blind Home Help | Policeman | Tourist Guide |
| De-stresser/Masseur | Pooper-Scooper | Tooth Brusher |
| Dog walker | Road Crossing Patrol | Window Cleaner |
| Fireman/Rescuer | Scarecrow |
Table 1. Some illustrative functions of the children’s robots out of a much wider range
Figure 8. A human-like humanoid robot (Designer: Rebecca Sakulku )
Figure 1 and 2 give examples of humanoid robots. These are clearly intended to be machines. By comparison, Figure 8 shows a human-like humanoid robot. In common with many other children, this designer thinks that the robots of the future will be able to look and act like human beings.
However, this will be a "Robot Teacher who’s fun! And crazy", presumably unlike the real teachers at school. Perhaps there is a theme here? Perhaps we can create human-like robots that not only surpass us in physical abilities, but also overcome our human weaknesses? Unlike some human teachers who are badly dressed, get stressed, and get bad tempered, this robot is trendy and fun. However, classes will not descend into chaos because "She can only teach good (and well) behaved children so they don’t wreck the place! She is a very smart teacher".
This design typifies many entries in that it provides a very good functional specification:
This list shows a bubbling imagination, and close observation of the world in which the robot will operate. By comparison this robot provides no technical details on how of the might be achieved. It is on the creative end of the design spectrum, and we feel that such creativity should be encouraged.
Figure 9. Example of a DomeBot. PetCarer for Guinea Pig or Rabbit (Designer: Sarah Percy, age 11)
Figures 9 and 10 show two examples of what we called ‘DomeBot’ robots, with completely different functions. Sarah Percy’s robot is intended to clean out a pet’s cage and groom the pet. Tina Finney’s robot, the "Ladybird", will give you your meals and wash up after you. Both these designs have very clear specifications, and show considerable imagination. Like many children, Tina has given her robot a name, which matches their form or function. Generally these names are witty, engaging, and great fun. Again these designs are on the more divergent end of the spectrum.
Figure 10. Example of DomeBot. The *Ladybird* cooks & washes-up (Designer: Tina Finney, Age 11)
Figure 11. An example of a PetBot. (Designer: Alvin House, Age 12 )
Figures 11 and 12 show examples of what we called PetBots, i.e. robots that look like animals. Previously we saw a robot that cleans a pet’s cage. The elephant in Figure 12 has the charming detail of posting a beautifully drawn letter in the post-box. This robot’s "eyes show emotions", and "when loved enough, lifts its trunk". The function of many PetBots is to give kind and friendly support to their owners. Looking back to Figure 9, we see that some children want robot pets to love and look after, and other children want robots to love and look after their pets. Certainly, many children saw robots as able to provide them with emotional support to others and themselves.
Figure 12. An example of a PetBot. (Designer: Candice Stevens, aged 13).
Figure 13: A SpiderBot. (Designer: Stacey Speakman, aged 10)
Figure 13 and 14 illustrate the multi-legged robots that we called SpiderBots. Many of these robots had the job of scurry around collecting rubbish or cleaning. Some had scissor hands for gardening and other jobs. Amusing, Stacey’s robot in Figure 13 says "I’ll sweep, I’ll clean, I’ll even collect old stamps!". Jack’s design in Figure14 illustrates the children’s wonderful ability to invent names for their robots, what else could this robot be called apart from "Webster"?
Figure 14. A SpiderBot. (Designer: Jack Narewski, aged 12 )
Figure 15. A BoxBot (Designer: no name and address on entry)
Many designs were effectively boxes on wheels. The one in Figure 15 is a fire-fighting robot. This design illustrates the unfortunate fact that some children put a lot of effort into their designs, but forgot to write their names and addresses on the back. Figure 16 shows a supermarket trolley robot, the Shoppa-Mate, that "does your shopping for you and gives your legs a rest!".
Figure 16. A BoxBot for the supermarket. (Designer: Amy Dring, aged 12 years)
Figure 17. A TrackBot: the RoboChair (Designer: Naomi Guild, Aged 8½ )
Figure 17 shows a tracked RoboChair for a disabled person. This chair enables Mary to have lunch with her disabled friend in the park. Many of the robots submitted in the competition were designed to help disabled or frail elderly people. Figure 18 shows another tracked robot, this time a construction worker. This robot lays bricks by first squirting the mortar and then lifting the bricks.
Figure 18. A TrackBot – The Phil O Macks Super Wow Builder
4. Designing is fun!
Many of the children entering our competitin obviously got absolutely absorbed in what they were doing. Figure 19 shows a design drawn with great energy and enthusiasm. Above all else, this design is fun!
Figure 19. An typical example of the enthusiasm and exuberance (Designer: Abbey Stewart, aged 13)
Figure 20 shows another witty and compassionate design, executed with great care and attention. The letters SSD at the top left are made from reflective gold foil, carefully cut to shape. Again we see how children will spontaneously devote a lot of time and energy to design projects. Even though they are not compelled to do, designing is great fun.
Figure 20. SSD – Signed Sealed and Delivered (Design: Harjit Mehroke, aged 14).
It’s not just the older children who get absorbed in their design. This robot, designed by 6½-year old Jake Christopher is replete with detail. He has a compartment for the T.V. remote control, crab pincers to pick things up, magnets for holding tins, sonar to stop him bumping into things, and much more besides. He even has a safe to keep money in! One can imagine the time that went into this, and the satisfaction that Jake must have felt when it was finished.
Figure 21. Little Helper who helps and protects disabled people. (Designer: Jake Ledger, aged 6½ )
Figure 22. Sir WorkAlot (Designer: Sean Lea, aged 5)
Figure 22 suggests that even the youngest children find design fun. The five year old Sean’s Sir WorkAlot has a leaf crusher and brooms for sweeping up. When it’s not busy clearing up your garden, it can polish your shoes. Figure 23 show another elaborate design, this time executed by a five-year old. Aaron’s robot will take him and his brother to school and collect them at coming-home time. It even has a sponge arm for cleaning itself. One can only imagine that both these young designers really enjoyed thinking up and elaborating their designs.
Figure 23. A robot to take you to school. (Designer: Aaron Lee Stewart, aged 5)
5. Compassionate Design
Figure 24. Nurse Nat. (Designer: not known)
Many of the children entering our competition interpreted being useful in highly compassionate ways. Many of the robots were doctors and nurses, as illustrated in Figure 24. A class of particularly useful humans seems to be "mums". Whether the children want to relieve their poor mothers of the drudgery of looking after them, or whether they think a robotic mum would do a better job, we can only guess. Nichola Holland’s real mum would no doubt be very grateful to have RoboMum shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25. RoboMum. (Designer: Nichola Holland, aged 9 years).
Our large database of design threw up a handful of robots whose job is to deal with bullies. Most boys submitting such designs wanted to scare the bully into leaving them or others alone. Kirsty’s robot shown in Figure 26 is in direct contrast: "It kicks the Bully - not! He gives the bully a lesson and talks about the bully’s problem. In fact this robot can give a range of useful advice, and we like it very much.
Figure 26. The Anti-Bully Machine. (Designer: Kirsy Mussard)
6. Engineering Design
Figure 27. ShockBot (Designer: Toby Roberts, age 12¾ )
Many of the robots submitted to our competition showed great imagination at both the problem identification and generative stages of the design process. Some went further than this and gave some serious consideration as to how their design would work in practice, and the drawings begin to look like serious engineering designs. This is illustrated by the two disaster robots shown in Figure 27 and 28. In both cases the designers have thought through the way that their machines might work, and the problems they may face and how they may be overcome.
Figure 28. CENTINAL – a disaster recovery unit (Designer: Nikhil Vettukattil, aged 10).
Figure 29. The Gutter Scutter Mouse robot to clean out rain gutters (Designer: Stuart Gardiner, age10)
The designs shown in Figure 29 and 30 are exceptional. Both drawings are nicely annotated. As well as providing useful engineering details, both designs are exceptionally well executed.
Figure 30. The Oil Slick Saver (Designer: Finn McStay, aged 9 years)
7. The Winning Designs
Judging 32,000 design is a big job. Many of the designs submitted to our competition were outstanding, and choosing the winners was very difficult.
Our criteria for judging the designs were based on the criteria those stated on the Blue Peter programme:
The judges were Jeffrey Johnson (Senior Research Fellow in Design and Innovation, and Chair of RoboFesta-UK), Anthony Hirst (Lecturer in Telematics and Computing), and Nigel Cross (Professor of Design Studies). From approximately six hundred short listed entries, we picked those presented in this section as First-Prize Winners.
The first prize in the seven-and-under group went to Steven Sutton for his splendidly imaginative robot to wake you up in the morning. The design is very clearly presented, and has charming vignette in the bottom right corner showing the robot at work. We havn’t met anyone who thinks this creepy-crawly robot might fail to wake them up!
Figure 31. First Prize, seven and under: The RoboCaterpillar to wake you up by crawling on you!
(Designer: Steven Sutton, aged 6)
The first prize in the 8 – 10 year age group went to eightyear old Poppy Mosbacher for her PaintingPal robot. Poppy went one step beyond a paper design, and actually built a model of her robot, as shown in Figure 32.
This design is actually based on a prototype that Poppy had constructed and resolved several implementation problems she experienced with her original design. Poppy also reveal that she found that the easiest way for her to explain her design was to build it rather than draw it.
Figure 32. First Prize, 8-10 years (Designer: Poppy Mosbacher, aged 8)
Thirteen year old Joel Pitt won the first prize in the 10-15 years age category. His design was considered to be very useful and original, as well as being timely. It was very well communicated though a nicely annotated drawing, and explanatory text.
On March 9th 2001, all the First-prize winners met at the Science in London for a Robot Design Masterclass. Joel had travelled to London by train with his mother. On the way they notices that sometimes the sleepers were covered in ballast stones, and sometimes there were objects between the tracks which could create difficulties. In the light of these observations and discussions with the other children and adults, Joel began to have some new ideas.
In the afternoon of that day, all the children experimented with prototypes of their robots which we had built at the Open University. Joel started with our prototype which was based on his original design. By the end of the afternoon he had built a compeletely new robot which overcame some of the problems in his original design. The whole point of the masterclass was to enable the children to go the design cycle a few more time, and we were delighted that Joel and the other prize-winners had done exactly this.
Figure 33. First Prize, 11-15 years. (Designer: Joel Pitt, aged 13)
Nadine Cook won the online section with a land-mine clearing robot system shown in Figure 34. Quite a few entries considered the important problem of clearing mines, but Nadine’s design was based on some very original and well thought-through ideas. These included the use of many collaborating robots based on the biological analogy of swarms of midges.
Figure 34. Winner of the on-line section. (Designer: Nadine Cook, aged 13)
In her design, Nadine went to the research frontiers of what is called swarm robotics. Motivated by observing the space-filling behaviour of midges, her minefield-clearing design was considered to be an outstanding achievement. On this high note we will conclude this report.
For more information about the Blue Peter-RoboFesta Robot Design Competition, email: robofesta@open.ac.uk