The MobilityMotivator, Minutes of the WP2 Meeting,

Paris,

October 23, 2013

Cité Universitaire Internationale de Paris, Maison du Canada

Participants

Technology Partners:

Stephan Roelants, (SR), Studio352

Kristof Van den Branden, (KVB), La Mosca

Julien Chomat, (JC), Audemat

Patrick Guin, (PG), Audemat

Peter Wagstaff, (PW), LISV

Sébastien Dourlens, (SD), LISV

Research, Endusers and Dissemination Partners:

Annegret Verbeek, (AV), GRC

Peter Enste, (PE), IAT

Christian Lovis, (CL), HUG

MBalloSeck, LISV/CEREMH

Radka Bartosova, (RB), INV

Marie-Madeleine Bernard, (MMB), LISV

SanjaVujacic, (SV), LISV

Monique Epstein (ME), E-Seniors

Anais Fernandez (AF), E-Seniors

Annick Martin (AM), NCP

MORNING SESSION

1. Introductions of the participants

2. IAT presentations

· PE provided an update on who is doing what

· For details see attached file

· ACTION: By mid of November IAT presents an English version of IAT’s paper on serious games

· Update IAT questionnaire: Already 950 participants to MoMo survey & expecting to have over 1000 by the end of the year across Germany, Austria, Switzerland,

· Question: Could the IAT’s questionnaire be used in France? ACTION: IAT and E-seniors to discuss this later

3. Criteria for selecting living lab participants

· Suggestions from AM that some living lab participants should be ‘disabled’ in one way or another

· PW on focus groups in France

o They have done a focus group with E-Seniors

o Proposed that they should try and get views also from carers

· AV focus group – talked about 2 different focus groups they have

o Focus group with technical experience (Internet group of GRCM)

o Focus group with experience in activity at age

· PE - Reminded to everybody that this was also discuss during our last meeting

o The key criteria for participants selection are: Age 60+, understanding the language (French, German)

4. Secondary data analysis by IAT presented by PE

· For details see attached file

5. IAT’s MoMo primary end-user questionnaire

· PE presented the different types of questions explore through the questionnaire:

o Quality of life

o Activity (daily activity, leisure activities)

o Handling of technical products

o Self-responsibility for health

· IAT is planning to do cluster analysis to identify different types of users groups

Discussion:

· Question to PE and AV what are all the channels through which you disseminate the survey?

- Customers of GRC

- Housing company in Mettmann

- Customers of a fitness studio

- Internet survey in Germany (supports by BAGSO and TU Munich)

· CL: What we don’t knowand what we need to find out is:

o What features would make a game addictive for an older person – What is older people’s perception of gaming? Should we change the terminology ‘gaming’ just because it can be perceived as negative?

o What type of apps do older people download? What are the characteristics of a “killer app”?

o RW commented – we can ask what people value, what’s fun for them

o What are the addictive immersive features?

· SR highlighted that when creating the target user profile we should differentiate among other where the target user is based whether it is in a city or countryside or elsewhere

· ACTION: CL proposed that PE should create a group which would develop a methodology for identifying the killer apps characteristics, what will older people

· E-seniors have a meeting on 12^th November in a workshop where they explore older people and gaming behaviour

6. Preliminary primary end-user questionnaire results

· Presentation by IAT (see attached file)

Discussion:

We must find out...

· …what motivates people to be active?

· …what demotivates people to be active?

7. Timeline for WP2

· For details see attached file

· ACTION: Develop research protocol after the meeting, review process in November

· Focus groups for primary to start in December and hopefully for secondary as well

· HUG contextual enquiry in their workplace will start in December, then focus groups, then participatory design

AFTERNOON SESSION

The agenda of the meeting has been changed. Partners note that the most important topic to discuss is how we can work with each other as a team.

1. Mails

· Bilateral discussions should take place between the two parties involved only

· Internal problems need to be solved internally

o Discussion: What are internal problems?

§ Contracts, salary, IP

· No mail should be longer than 10 lines, if it is to be longer it should be a document

· All participants agree to the following E-Mail rules:

- No longer than 10 lines

- No internals

- Clear description of subject

2. Executive Board

· Who is the board?

· ACTION:SV organizes a board meeting – 1 person from each organisation

3. Tools to work

· Mailing lists and somebody who is in charge, typically a coordinator’s job

o WP leaders

o WP leaders + other partners

o Consortium

o Executive Board

· At a doodle (provided with date and location!), people need to respond fast

· At a doddle participants also write their institution (e.g. Peter [IAT])

4. What we are going to do – action plan

· What has to be done by whom for the next 2 months and concentrate on that

· ACTION: PE will develop a time schedule with focus on WP 2 for the next 5 months and will send it around in the week after the meeting.

5. Discussion about the common vision

· Target – elderly

· 2 functional requirements

o Achieve – improved mobility/cognitive skills

· Socio-economic evaluation

o We will select the group based on which we will then

o We will not design the project based on a specific population but we will devise a socio-economic evaluation based on a selected group

· First step: To define what is the technical ‘playground’

Intersection with WP 3:

Presentation of Studio 352 & LISV