Tatjana Aarsaether

Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
Prototype Evaluations
Stage 1: Report
1. Compactability Testing within Bracelet
- Introduction/Purpose: The device should have each
component, sound, light, and tracking, be small enough
(compact), as to not be a clunky or in the way of everyday tasks
performed by the user. This will also allow for convenient
portability as it is attached to the body without being distracting
in size, while still being fully accessible. Though this is more of a
theoretical experiment, as we do not have the technology to
complete it to its full potential, it will gives us an idea of our
proof in concept.
-

Materials:
-

Bracelet
Light Mechanism
Sound Mechanism

Methods:
- Have one person put the device on.
- Have the other person chose a position
to attack from.
- Have a timer, ready with the timer, say
start.
- The attacker will attack the person
wearing the device.
- The timer will keep the timer going until
the attackee hits the device.
- The timer will write the time down.
- Have the attacker choose a new position.
- Repeat 3-6.
- Data: With GPS tracker the width of the bracelet is
about a quarter of an inch, only slightly bigger than without. The
sound/ lights, due to their size, does not easily attach to the
bracelet as it should in theory.
- Results: We found that if the sound and light device
were to be as compact and professionally down as the GPS
tracker was, we would be able to fit the sound device as well as

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
the GPS tracker onto the bracelet as we had hoped, and had the
lights on a separate component.
- Discussion/Analysis: For the proof of concept we had
successfully attached the GPS as to go with the bracelet, but as
for the other components, we were able to get them to work as
we hoped, just not in the size that we had hoped for.
- Conclusion: This analysis showed that the device is
potentially compatible given the correct materials. Though it
cannot be created perfectly to the original plan, the GPS tracker
as well as the design of the bracelet serves as a proof of concept.
To keep with the goal of the bracelet being as accessible as
possible we focused on the GPS tracking chip and the material
and design to serve to create a product of our original desire. For
our modifications, this is our main concern to tinker with.
2.

Figures/Graphs: There were no figures for this test.

Accessibility Test
- Introduction/Purpose: If the device is compact
enough and attached the body, then it should be able to be
accessed during any type of attack. In this test we had one
person attack the one wearing the device from several different
positions. There were no problems with most of the attacks, but,
when the device is in bracelet mode, if the attacker grabs the
attacker's arms,it is difficult to access the device. So there needs
to be a way to use the device without risking not accessing it.
Overall access to the device was really quick and effective.
-

Materials:
-

Device
Bracelet
Two People
Timer
Paper
Pen

Methods:
-

Have one person put the device on

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
-

Have the other person chose a position

Have a timer, ready with the timer, say

to attack from
start.
- The attacker will attack the person
wearing the device
- The timer will keep the timer going until
the attackee hits the device.
- The timer will write the time down.
- Have the attacker choose a new position.
- Repeat 3-6

Data:

Trial

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Time (sec)

7.23

6.46

6.32

- Results and Discussion: From the trial we were able

to determine that overall accessing the device is easy but it is
hard to do it really fast. While 6-7 seconds seems fast, in the
case of an attack it could be the difference between contacting
someone for help or being completely alone. The issues with the
test is that we did it with one person, so they got better with
practice despite new attack positions. But, typically, people do
not have several opportunities to get better at quickly assessing
the device.
- Conclusion: The experiment showed that the device
is overall effective in accessibility meaning the hypothesis was
accepted to an extent. There are still some issues with speed.
While the times shown in the table were good, it would be better
for them to be faster, whether that means finding a more
accessible point in the body and making the device have more
than one access point, will be something that we need to figure
out in our modifications.

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
Grap
h:

3.

Durability of Bracelet
- Introduction/Purpose: The device should be able to
be used multiple times without falling apart or breaking and all
individual parts should be working properly (lights bright enough,
alarm loud enough, gps accurate). It should also be able to stay
on and work for a long period of time.
-

Materials:
-

Devices
Bracelet
Person (user)

Methods:
- Have someone put the bracelet on with
all devices
- Record if devices are working properly to
start
- Activate the devices and leave them
activated for an extended period of time
- Record if devices are working at same
level as originally
- Repeat at least three times
-

Data:

Device

Initial

Trial 1
(after 30
min)

Light

Fairly bright, Still pretty

Trial 2
(after 1
hour)

Trial 3
(after 2
hours)

Seems

Not very

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
could be
more so to
catch more
attention

bright not
getting
dimmer but
also not
bright
enough

dimmer and
fading but
still about
the same

bright at all
but still
visible

Sonar

Doesnt
work

GPS

Works well
and gives
off sound to
track, fairly
large
tracking
radius

Still working Works the

and alarm
same
still sounds
when
activated,
same
tracking
radius

Still tracks
the same
with radius
the same,
alarm
might be
getting
weaker

- Results and Discussion:From the trial we were able to

determine that overall the device worked and lasted a fairly long
time although the sound emitter(sonar) was not working at all.
While 2 hours may seem long, the actual period of time the
devices would need to be used is uncertain based on how quickly
others could respond and aid to the victim. The issues with the
test is that we only tested for two hours and some victims might
be waiting longer before help arrives but the point of the device
is also to shave down response time . Also, from this we can
conclude that a person could use this multiple times and the
devices would not wear down until it had been used many times
for long periods of time and even then the batteries can be
changed.
- Conclusion: The experiment showed that the device
is overall effective in use and durability so it can be used for a
while and multiple times. There are still some issues with certain
parts of the device not working which will have to be improved.
While the data from the table was stable we would also like the
starting points and ability at the start to be better and they will
be something that we need to figure out in our modifications.

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
==============================================
================================
Stage 2: Procedure
Sites:
- Site 1: Public Area (Mall)
- Site 2: College Campus
- Site 3: Parking lot at dark
Survey:
1. Was it effective?
2. Did it make you feel safe?
3. Were you able to access it easily?
4. Do you like that it is a braclet?
5. What should be added?
6. What should be taken away?
7. Would you buy this?
8. Why, or why not?
9. What is the biggest improvement we can make?
Survey Report
PUBLIC AREA1. Device used in a Public Area Test
2. From this visit we hope to gather information to help us modify
our product. The information we are interested in would be that overall
bulkiness/ aesthetics of the product in a public situation, the
accessibility of using such product, and the
3. We wanted to go to an area that frequently holds a lot of people,
like in a downtown setting, where there is a lot of action going on to
view how our product would work in a crowded/ busy area or just in
public in general.
4. Downtown Lakeway
5. 1900 Ranch Road 620 S, Lakeway, TX 78734
6. April 14, 2016 at 6-7 p.m.
7. Images of the visit and information about the individuals
evaluating your prototype.
8. Julia Trowbridge
9. High School student; Server at cafe.
10.
N/A
11.
N/A
12.
Data-

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
- Was it effective? Yes to an extent; as of now I like the GPS
component, but if it had the sound it would be a really useful for me.
- Did it make you feel safe? It did. I get off work really late
sometimes and if I were to use it going to my car, or just in general
have it on, it would make me feel safer.
- Were you able to access it easily? Yes; I liked how it is always on
me so I don't have to worry about finding it.
- Do you like that it is a braclet? Yes; it looks like something I
would wear.
- What should be added? If you could get the sound device added,
it would make the product really cool.
- What should be taken away? Maybe the lights? I dont see it as a
priority over the alarm.
- Would you buy this? Why, or why not? I would buy this if it didnt
cost too much because I havent really seen anything quite like it.
- What is the biggest improvement we can make? Definitely work
on getting it compact.
13.

Results/Conclusion- From the data we collected on this test,

- Forest/ less populated area

1. From the visit we hoped to see how well the device worked with
less people around especially with the gps locator and seeing how long
the lights could stay on.We hoped from this we could get some outside
feedback on what might need to be improved upon for a more
prolonged use of the device.
2. The site was out in a semi remote area with buildings, cars, and
people not very close by because usually when someone is attacked
the attacker chooses a less populated area.
3. Falconhead Golf Course
4. 3400 RR 620s
5. April 14, time 4-5pm
6. Images of the visit and information about the individuals
evaluating your prototype.
7. Amanda Black
8. Student
9. N/A
10.
N/A
11.
a. Was it effective? Yes it was pretty effective. When
everything was all in place it worked.

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
b. Did it make you feel safe? Kind of.
c. Were you able to access it easily? Yes it wasn't that
hard to use.
d. Do you like that it is a braclet? Yes it's a cool design.
e. What should be added? Maybe a weapon!
f. What should be taken away? It seemed fine.
g. Would you buy this? Yeah if it wasn't too expensive
and a little smaller
h. What is the biggest improvement we can make?
Adding the sound device or the weapon part.
12.
Results/Conclusion- The device is more for alerting others
and sending location so in a more remote place it would be a little
harder to get to the person in a more timely manner but it did do its
job. Some parts of the device do need to be put in more securely
though because the gps battery kept getting loose.

PARKING LOT AT DARK1. Parking Lot at Dark Test

2. From the visit we hoped to see how well the device worked with
the light and with accessibility for someone who has not been working
on the project in a dark parking lot. The lightest were a bit dim, but
Emma, the tester, was able to access the device to turn it on pretty
easily.
3. The site was valuable because few people are in the parking lot
and the lights of the surrounding building were fairly dim. In addition,
women can be attacked if shopping late at night or if the are going to
their car from a party, event, etc.
4. 620 Dance Centre
5. 15500 Stroup Cir, Lakeway, TX 78734
6. April 12, 2016 8:00pm
7. Images of the visit and information about the individuals
evaluating your prototype.
8. Amanda Waugh
9. Teachers Assistant and student
10.
Student
11.
Soon to be college student
12.
Data- Included the survey data
- Was it effective? More or less.
- Did it make you feel safe? Kind of; I feel like if it had the speaker
it would be better.

Tatjana Aarsaether
Juliana Flores
Tatiana Baig
- Were you able to access it easily? Yes.
- Do you like that it is a braclet? Kind of; I do not wear jewelry that
often, but i liked that it was light and not too fancy.
- What should be added? Brighter lights.
- What should be taken away? Not really anything.
- Would you buy this? Probably, if it was cheap and not too
expensive.
- Why, or why not? Because it gets the job done.
- What is the biggest improvement we can make? Add a working
speaker and brighter lights.
13.
Overall the device is good, but we definitely need to work
to improve the device and make it more effective. It is an okay
prototype but there is a lot that needs to be fixed and improved.