SHIFT Learning by Design robotic ASL hands

This paragraph appears in search results and previews for this page. In three to five sentences, summarize the whole project from background to result: what you designed, for whom, where and when, why it matters, and how it turned out. Write this last. It should make sense to someone who has never heard of your project, your client, or Humboldt County.

Describe the background of the project, covering who, what, when, why, and where: the client, the site, the course (Engr205 Introduction to Design at Cal Poly Humboldt), the semester, and your team. This page will be read by people around the world and in the future, so give enough context that a stranger understands it. Refer to your images in the text, e.g., Figure 1 shows the site before the project.

Images uploaded to Appropedia must be free to share and uniquely named. Start each file name with your project name, e.g., CCAT_compost_bin_background.jpg. Use File:Default.png as a placeholder until you have the real image. Give every image alt text (alt=) that describes it for readers using screen readers; the caption is what everyone reads, the alt text is what the image shows.

The objective of this project is to design, build, and test a... Write this so that a reader would know when the project is complete. You will refine this statement throughout the semester.

This section defines what the ASL fingerspelling robotic hand must do and how design options will be judged. It lists the specifications and considerations for the hand and its quiz base, presents the weighted criteria and constraints in Table 1, and describes how the Cal Poly Humboldt ASL Club will use the finished unit.

Specifications are what must exist and the conditions the design must meet. Introduce the list, e.g., the specifications for this project include:

• The hand must fingerspell words using the ASL alphabet.
• The device must accept typed input from the user.
• The device must fit on a small desk.
• The device must be usable by one person for self-guided learning.
• All electronics must be housed internally, with no exposed wires.
• The keyboard must be detachable.
• A screen must display the user's input, instructions, and results.
• Each finger must have two degrees of motion (curl and side-to-side spread).

Considerations are what the design must keep in mind. Introduce the list, e.g., the considerations for this project include:

• Users will range from beginner to advanced ASL students, so the hand and on-screen instructions must work at different levels of fingerspelling ability.
• Materials should be lightweight so the device is easy to carry and puts less load on the servos.
• The device should be easy and intuitive to use, even for someone using it for the first time.
• The device should be easy to repair, since return elastics and tendons stretch and wear out over time and will need to be replaced.

Criteria are the basis for judging solutions, and constraints are the limits each criterion must meet. Table 1 lists the criteria, constraints, and weights for this project. A weight of 10 marks the most important criteria. The weights reflect feedback from the ASL Club, which put readable handshapes and finger mobility first because the hand is only useful as a learning tool if members can recognize the letters it forms.

Table 1: Example criteria and constraints for purchasing a chocolate bar. Replace with your project's criteria.

Criterion	Constraint	Weight (0–10, 10 highest)
Finger Mobility	Has to clearly show all 26 letters	10
Usability	can be easily used by at least one person	6
Battery life	Greater than or equal to 3 hours battery life	2
Portability	Can be transported from classroom to library by one person	7
Speed	Can spell up to 5 letters per second	5

The team will build one unit for the Cal Poly Humboldt ASL Club. Club members and other ASL learners will use it, one or more people at a time, to practice reading fingerspelling: the user(s) types or picks a word, watches the hand spell it, and checks their answer on the screen. The device will mostly be used during club meetings, study sessions, and events. Clear on-screen instructions should let a first-time user run it without help. The club should be able to use the hand for several academic years if worn elastics and tendons are replaced. Only one unit is planned, but the CAD files, code, and assembly instructions will be published on this page so other schools, clubs, or makers can build their own.

This literature review is an annotated bibliography. Introduce it in one to two sentences that name the topics covered and why they matter for this project. Group entries under topic headings (Client first, then 4-12 topics relevant to your design, such as materials, similar projects, local climate, or user needs).

Minimum sources per team member: one peer-reviewed journal article, one book, and two credible web sources, plus the client sources your team needs. More credible sources are welcome.

Each entry has three parts:

1. The citation in ASCE format. Either place it inside a named footnote, as in the examples below, so it appears under References and can be reused elsewhere on the page with <ref name="Smith2020" />, or write it out in full at the start of the entry. Pick one approach and use it for the whole page.
2. Summary (two to three sentences): what the source is and what it says. Write it in your own words.
3. Relevance (one to two sentences): how it informs this design, e.g., a criterion, a constraint, an alternative, or a decision.

Aim for 75-150 words per entry. No plagiarism: summarize, do not copy. Quote sparingly and always in quotation marks with a citation.

Describe the client and what matters to them for this project. Sources here are often the client's website, documents, and interviews.

Client interview^[1]

Summary: Who you interviewed, their role, and the key points they shared.

Relevance: Which criteria, constraints, or considerations came from this interview.

Interview

Client website^[2]

Summary: ...

Relevance: ...

Web

Replace "First topic" with a descriptive heading. Open with one sentence that says why this topic matters to the project.

Short title of the source^[3]

Summary: ...

Relevance: ...

Peer-reviewed journal

Short title of the source^[4]

Summary: ...

Relevance: ...

Book

You get the idea. Use as many topics as your project needs.

In three to six bullets, synthesize what the literature means for your design. Cite the entries above, e.g., <ref name="Author2020" />.

• Takeaway that shaped a criterion or constraint.
• Takeaway that shaped an alternative or the final decision.

Introduce this section in one to two sentences specific to your project.

Describe four to eight alternatives, each under its own 'step template' as shown below and each with a catchy, descriptive name.

Continue this for the four to eight alternatives you have.

Introduce this section in one to two sentences specific to your project.

Each criterion from Table 1 is defined below as it is used to judge the alternatives. These definitions describe what is being measured, not the limits each criterion must meet; the limits are the constraints listed in Table 1.

Finger Mobility

The degree to which the base layout leaves the hand's motion unobstructed so it can clearly form all 26 ASL letters.

Usability

How easily one person can operate the quiz alone, including reading the screen and the hand at the same time and reaching the keyboard and controls.

Battery life

How well the layout supports running the device for the intended session length, considering space for a power source and whether the layout assumes battery operation.

Portability

How conveniently one person can carry the finished device between locations such as a classroom and the library, considering size, weight, and handholds.

Speed

How well the layout supports fingerspelling at a useful pace without adding mechanical friction or delays to the hand's motion.

We used a Delphi decision matrix to choose between the four base-layout alternatives. Each team member independently scored every alternative from 0 to 10 against every criterion in Table 1, using the definitions above. We then met as a team, compared our scores, discussed the criteria where we differed by three or more points, and explained our reasoning before settling on the consensus scores shown in Table 2. Because all four alternatives share the same hand, servos, and control code, we scored only what each layout itself changes; screen placement, simultaneous hand-and-screen visibility, enclosure size, controls, and appearance; and kept scores equal wherever a layout does not change the outcome. Table 2 summarizes the decision matrix.

Table 2: Decision matrix for the four base-layout alternatives. Scores are 0–10; weighted totals are the sum of weight × score.

Criterion	Weight	Slant-Front Signer	Classic Sign Station	Textured Teaching Console	Split-Panel Sign Showcase
Finger mobility	10	9	9	9	9
Usability	6	8	8	8	8
Battery life	2	8	8	8	8
Portability	7	8	8	8	7
Speed	5	9	9	9	9
Weighted total	30	255	255	255	248

= == Final decision ===

We selected the Slant-Front Signer as our final design. As shown in Table 2, it earned 255 out of 300 possible points, tying the Classic Sign Station and Textured Teaching Console for first place and exceeding the Split-Panel Sign Showcase’s 248 points. It scored 9/10 for finger mobility and speed and 8/10 for usability, battery life, and portability. Because the matrix produced a three-way tie, we chose the Slant-Front Signer based on our preference for its angled front panel, which positions the screen and controls toward the user for independent ASL practice.

Show your most impactful prototypes from earliest to final. Include at least one prototype for function (does it work? e.g., testing a mechanism, material, or dimension) and at least one prototype for desire (will people want to use it? e.g., a mockup shown to the client or users for feedback). Each caption should say what the prototype is, whether it tested function or desire, and what you learned from it. Early sketches, failed attempts, and photos of materials and hands at work all help tell the story.

• 
• 

= = Final design ==

Describe the final design, starting with the big picture and then going into detail. Use labeled images and refer to them in the text. This is usually a big section.

• 
• 

= == Construction ===

Give a complete description of how the final design is built, with lots of images, so someone else could replicate it. Use one {{Step}} per step. This is much easier to write as descriptive (what you did) instead of prescriptive (what another person should do), but you can take either approach.

The timeline below shows the major milestones for designing, building, and delivering the ASL fingerspelling robotic hand, with the physical hand planned to be mechanically complete by October 30 (Week 10). Tasks were scheduled around weekly Tuesday client check-ins and Friday group build sessions, and this table will be updated at the end of the semester to show the actual timeline.

Table 3: Project timeline.

Date	Description	Status
September 20, 2026	Background and problem statement posted	Complete
September 27, 2026	Literature review posted	Complete
October 2, 2026	Robot Nano Hand parts ordered	Complete
October 4, 2026	Problem analysis, timeline, and ethics posted	Complete
October 9, 2026	Parts received; ASL club observation and interview completed	Not started
October 13, 2026	Final word list and letter priorities confirmed with client	Not started
October 16, 2026	Print settings optimized and first prototype (V1) hand printed	Not started
October 23, 2026	First prototype assembled with tendons and servos	Not started
October 27, 2026	Client review of first prototype handshapes	Not started
October 30, 2026	Hand, base, and electronics integrated; physical hand mechanically complete	Not started
November 3, 2026	Client walkthrough and ASL student testing of the fingerspelling quiz	Not started
November 13, 2026	A–Z letter calibration and reliability testing completed	Not started
November 17, 2026	Project more than 90% complete; code finalized and posted to GitHub	Not started
November 22, 2026	Appropedia page draft and presentation slides completed	Not started
December 1, 2026	Final presentation	Not started
December 6, 2026	Final design report, digital deliverables, and video submitted	Not started
December 8, 2026	Robotic hand handed off to the ASL club with care guide	Not started
December 17, 2026	Final pitch in the Great Hall	Not started

The costs of the ASL robotic hand include the team’s design time, the materials and components needed for construction, and future operation and maintenance expenses. These categories distinguish the effort required to develop the design from the expenses of building and maintaining it.

Show the total human hours your team spent outside of class, grouped into categories (e.g., research, brainstorming, prototyping, construction, documentation). Three teammates working for one hour is three human hours.

The current implementation cost of the ASL robotic hand is $267.43, based on the purchased components listed in the bill of materials below. These amounts represent actual purchase costs rather than proposed estimates. The purchases include stainless steel dowel pins, servo motors, elastic bands, an LCD touchscreen, a USB-to-TTL adapter, a servo driver, and an ESP32 microcontroller.image.jpg

No donated materials have been used in the project. Any reused materials will be identified separately in the bill of materials, along with any cost to the team. The current total includes only the purchases recorded so far; additional materials and expenses will be added as they are confirmed. The budget will be updated at the end of the semester to reflect the final construction cost.

The cost of replicating the hand may differ from the team’s expenditures because purchased quantities may include spare components, and future builders may pay different prices for materials.

Item	Amount	Cost per unit	Total
18-8 Stainless Steel Dowel Pin 2 mm Diameter, 10 mm Long Part number 91585A221 — Purchased	100	USD 0.17	USD 17.00
18-8 Stainless Steel Dowel Pin 2 mm Diameter, 16 mm Long Part number 91585A231 — Purchased	50	USD 0.26	USD 13.00
18-8 Stainless Steel Dowel Pin 2 mm Diameter, 18 mm Long Part number 91585A233 — Purchased	50	USD 0.22	USD 11.00
18-8 Stainless Steel Dowel Pin 2 mm Diameter, 20 mm Long Part number 91585A240 — Purchased	50	USD 0.23	USD 11.50
18-8 Stainless Steel Dowel Pin 2 mm Diameter, 24 mm Long Part number 91585A261 — Purchased	50	USD 0.29	USD 14.50
SCS0009 Servos — Purchased	10	USD 9.50	USD 95.00
15mm Elastic Bands — Purchased	150	USD 0.05	USD 7.50
LCD touch screen — Purchased	1	USD 29.00	USD 29.00
USB to TTL adapter — Purchased	1	USD 19.44	USD 19.44
Servo Driver Motor — Purchased	1	USD 26.00	USD 26.00
ESP32 — Purchased	1	USD 23.49	USD 23.49
PrintGrand total			USD 267.43EUR 229.99 <br />GBP 195.22 <br />CAD 331.61 <br />MXN 5,575.92 <br />INR 20,017.14 <br />

Introduce the ongoing costs in time and money, usually per year.

{ | class = "wikitable sortable" | + Table 4: Yearly maintenance cost. ! Task ! Frequency ! Time per year (hours) ! Cost per year (USD) | - | Example task | Monthly | 2 | 0.00 | - ! Total ! ! 2 ! 0.00 | } = = Operation ==

Introduce how to use the design, then give step-by-step instructions with labeled images. Use {{Step}} if the process has more than a few steps. A short video is a great addition:

Introduce this maintenance section. Answer these questions:

• Are there any needed actions for maintenance?
• How often?
• Who should perform maintenance?

This is when to maintain what. Please keep the format the same as it can be used to auto-populate maintenance tables.

Daily

• A daily task
• A daily task

Weekly

• a weekly task
• a weekly task

Monthly

• a monthly task
• a monthly task

Yearly

• a yearly task
• a yearly task

Every __ years

• task
• task

Give step-by-step maintenance instructions, using {{Step}} if helpful.

Describe how you tested the final design and what the results were. Compare the results to your criteria, e.g., in a table like Table 5.

{ | class = "wikitable sortable" | + Table 5: Final design performance against criteria. ! Criterion ! Constraint ! Result ! Met? | - | Cost | Less than or equal to $3 per ounce | $2.50 per ounce | Yes | } = == Discussion ===

Discuss what the testing results mean.

Discuss what your team learned and what you would do differently next time.

Discuss next steps for the project as it goes on into the future.

Cover basic operating problems only. For complex issues, the suggestion might be to contact ________.

{ | class = "wikitable" ! Problem ! Suggestion | - | Example issue | Example solution or suggestion | - | Does not turn on | Make sure it is plugged in. | - | Another issue | Etc. | } = = Inspirational Video ==

Include an inspirational video for sharing.

Introduce the team and semester, e.g., This project was completed in SEMESTER YEAR by Team TEAMNAME:

• Lonny Grafman
• Emilio Velis
• One bullet for each team member, in the format [[User:Username|Full Name]]. = = References ==

}}

}}

}}

}}