Group 7, Team Colonial

David, John, Horia

Project Summary

The Pos­turePar­rot helps users maintain good back posture while sitting.

Introduction

The system that is being evaluated is the functional prototype of the PostureParrot and its accompanying GUI.  The purpose of this experiment is to determine whether our target audience will find the operation of the PostureParrot to be simple, intuitive and instructive.  It needs to be easy for users to wear the product and learn from its audible feedback and from the GUI’s visual feedback.

Implementation and Improvements

Link to P5: https://blogs.princeton.edu/humancomputerinterface/2013/04/22/p5-postureparrot/

Between P5 and P6, we have altered the list of tasks, now reintroducing a GUI that allows the user to set their default back posture, as well as alter the allowed wiggle room (degree that user can move without being notified) and time allowance (total time that user can deviate from default posture before being notified.) This GUI originally allowed the user to set the default back posture, as well as see changes in separate areas of the back over time; through our tests, we discovered that it was simpler, more refined, and more accessible to produce a compact device with a single component rather than a device that monitored multiple parts of the back. Overtime, we discovered that our fabric “reset” button embedded in the device was extremely unreliable, and, as a result, moved this functionality to our GUI.

Method

Participants

To select our participants, we looked for Princeton students who studied while sitting.  To find these students, we went to an eating club library and asked sitting students if they would like to take part in our usability study.  Additionally, we asked them each a few questions to make sure that they were a part of our target user group.  For example, we asked them if they studied at desks a lot of the time or if they ever experienced back pain.

Apparatus

We performed the test at a table that was set up in an eating club.  We put a standard desk chair up against the table.  The only other equipment we used was our PostureParrot connected to a laptop.

Tasks

(Easy) Set the default back posture of the PostureParrot.  This requires that you have already attached the device and opened the GUI.  The user should position himself so that he has good back posture   Then he should press the button on the GUI that says “Set Default Posture”.

(Medium) Deviate your back from the desired back posture and respond to the PostureParrot’s audible feedback.  After the user has set a default back posture,  the device will make a noise when the user deviates too far from it.  The user must correct their back posture back to the default to make the noise stop.

(Hard) Use the GUI to adjust the PostureParrot’s wiggle room and time allowance.  While the device is attached and the GUI is running, the user adjusts the values associated with wiggle room and time allowance and observes the effects.  The user should select a wiggle room and time allowance that they feel comfortable with.

Procedure

For each participant, we first requested that they fill out the consent form, as well as their demographic data. We then gave them a quick demo, opening up the GUI and demonstrating how one attaches the device onto their shoulder. After beginning our video recording, we then asked the participant to sit before the laptop and attach the device themselves before proceeding to the three tasks. For each of these tasks, we explained to each participant what they were trying to achieve, and asked them to say aloud any concerns or observations as they arise (which we recorded by taking notes, in addition to any critical incidents that we see.) Once a task was complete, we paused to explain the goal of the next task. Once all three tasks were complete, we asked each participant to take a brief survey.

Test Measures

Our main goal for testing was to evaluate the level of difficulty associated with the different tasks.  In addition to making standard observations, we had the user fill out a questionnaire where they self-reported values pertaining to their satisfaction and level of difficulty with different aspects of the device.  The following were our questions:

• Please rate the difficulty of task 1 (setting the default posture)
• Please rate the difficulty of task 2 (deviating from default back posture)
• Please rate the difficulty of finding a good “wiggle-room” value
• Please rate the difficulty of finding a good “time-allowance” value
• Please rate how intuitive the device was over-all
• Please provide any additional comments / potential improvements

Results and Discussion

Through our observational notes, we noticed that users were confused when asked to set the default back posture. This could potentially because there was no confirmation when a user selected the button to set their desired back posture. To alleviate this, we plan on making the arduino beep in confirmation when a new default is set. We also discovered a bug that was present in our GUI; due to some odd communication between Processing and Arduino, values for both wiggle room and time allowance become distorted when the increment/decrement buttons were quickly selected. Fixing this problem will involve looking at the values that are being passed between the two programs, as well as how various delays (intentional delays, tone delays, etc) are affecting results.

Through our observational notes, we learned that wiggle room and time allowance were not intrinsically intuitive and require additional explanation. In future iterations, this may simply require a small text snippet in the GUI that briefly explains what each value represents. We also found that our default value for wiggle room was far too lenient; in our final iteration, we will have refined values so that the device responds appropriately to those using it, especially first-time users. We also discovered that sometimes it becomes difficult finding your original posture, especially when the wiggle room is relatively unforgiving. One potential way of addressing this in our next version is to have the tone respond according to your deviance from the base posture; for example, we could have it so it increases in frequency the farther you deviate. However, perhaps this functionality may be unnecessary, since users can always reset their desired back posture.

From our questionnaire, we discovered that the first two tasks were relatively easy; this shows that although our interface was slightly surprising without a notification, it was still an easy task to accomplish. The last task – regarding the two variables – was generally more difficult; although this was most likely due to the distorted values, it would be useful to find out if there were additional reasons for why this task was unintuitive. For the additional comments part of the questionnaire, we received a comment about how the adhesive on the device made it difficult to keep it on the user’s shoulder.  Another comment that we received stated that it was possible to achieve the same “good posture” angle when slouching.  Although this is a valid point, the user did have to work to find this same angle and our adjustable wiggle room and time allowance should compensate for this.  To completely eliminate this issue we would need to keep track of lower back posture too, something that would require the device to be more cumbersome (what we moved away from after P5).

There were some limitations that we found while conducting our usability study.  Due to our small population size, it was difficult to get an accurate idea for what users thought were optimal wiggle room and time allowance values.  It would be interesting to track the final wiggle room and time allowance values settled upon by many different users.  Another limitation that we had in our sample population was that our test users all had very low back pain.  Each of our users were male as well, meaning that we were not able to distinguish differences in usage by gender.  After tracking each user’s major, we also thought that it would be interesting to see how people with different lifestyles (lifestyles associated with computer science majors, english, etc) would affect the product usage.  This would also require a larger population.

Appendices

Consent and Demographic Form

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_LCk7FghqrJVk9xdUxzcThOXzQ/edit?usp=sharing

Questionnaire

Name: ________________________

Please rate the difficulty of task 1 (setting the default posture)
1 – difficult 2 3 4 5 6 7 – easy

Please rate the difficulty of task 2 (deviating from default back posture)
1 – difficult 2 3 4 5 6 7 – easy

Please rate the difficulty of finding a good “wiggle-room” value
1 – difficult 2 3 4 5 6 7 – easy

Please rate the difficulty of finding a good “time-allowance” value
1 – difficult 2 3 4 5 6 7 – easy

Please rate how intuitive the device was, over-all
1 – not intuitive 2 3 4 5 6 7 – very intuitive

Any additional comments / potential improvements:

Observational Notes & Questionnaire Responses

Max J.

Task #1

• 7:06 Clicks default posture and laughs (potentially because nothing happened on either the interface or the device)

Task #2

• 7:06 Laughs (potentially because he needs to bend his back to a great degree)

Task #3

• 7:08 Moves GUI around screen
• 7:08 Finds a bug: if user clicks buttons too quickly, values are corrupted
• 7:08 Device falls off shoulder and needed to be placed on the shoulder again
• 7:09 Experiments with wiggle room until a desirable value is found

Questionnaire Responses

1. 7
2. 7
3. 3 (“buggy”)
4. 3
5. 7
6. Additional Comments: Better tape [emphasis his]

Zhexiang W.

Task #1

• 7:25 Confused by no confirmation after selecting default

Task #2

• 7:26 Comments that the default wiggle room is extremely large
• 7:27 Wonders if there is a time delay / if he should move slower while testing

Task #3

• 7:27 Minimizes the range of wiggle room, is pleased with stricter values

Questionnaire Responses

1. 6
2. 6
3. 2
4. 5
5. 6
6. Additional Comments: None

Andy H.

Task #1

• 7:45 Success!

Task #2

• 7:45 Tries different ranges of motions: forward-back, left-right, diagonally

Task #3

• 7:47 Has difficult time finding original position
• 7:48 Tries device moving forward and backward, but not any other direction

Questionnaire Responses

1. 6
2. 5-6 (circled together)
3. 5-6
4. 5-6
5. 4
6. Additional Comments: Needs to keep track of lower back posture too – same “angle” can be achieved w/ both slouching and “good” posture

Group 7, Team Colonial

David, John, Horia

Project Summary

The PostureParrot helps users maintain good back posture while sitting.

Working Prototype Tasks

Task 1 (Easy): Putting the posture parrot on

At this point, the PostureParrot is connected to a USB port for power.  The user puts the connected device onto the top of their shoulder of choice.  The device will stick due to its adhesive underside.

Task 2 (Medium): Setting the default posture

The user should position himself so that he has good back posture.  Then he should press the top of the device.  This will set the default back posture.

Task 3 (Hard): Adjusting back posture based on device feedback

After the user has set a default back posture, the device will make a noise when the user deviates too far from it.  The user must correct their back posture back to the default to make the noise stop.

Choice of Tasks 

The goals of these three tasks are the same as in P4.  However, there are a few differences in how a user must accomplish these goals.  For example, in task 1 the user must put the device on differently due to its new design.  In task 2, the user now sets the default back posture through the button that covers the entire top of the device, a simpler design that prevents the user from having to open an application.  In task 3, the user still reacts to the feedback given by the device, but this time it is done through the sound given off by the PostureParrot, not a vibration.  In general, our adjustment of tasks was driven by the simplification of our product, which eliminated the need for a desktop application.

Revised Interface Design

As a result of P4, we made several changes to how the device is worn. We originally constructed a device that traveled the length of the spine and registered whether or not the user changed his or her posture through a change in flexible, resistive fabrics. One problem with this original design is that it could not accommodate users with extremely small or large back sizes, which we discovered during our paper prototype phase. Additionally, we found that our resistive fabrics were insufficient for creating our device, so we were left in a position that required us to entirely rethink our approach to the problem. Our revised, alternative solution uses an accelerometer to detect changes in posture, and rather than notifying users with a vibrating motor, we decided to notify them auditorily through a piezo buzzer, which requires significantly less weight. This device is placed on the user’s shoulder, rather than the user’s back, and thus accommodates for a wider range of user body types.

Another alteration we made for our revised interface was to remove the data visualization GUI that displayed back posture deviance over time. Through our user tests, we found that plotting the deviance in posture over time and differentiating areas of the back were not contributing a great deal of useful information, and that the benefits of having the device beep was sufficient for notifying the user of poor posture. Through this simplification process, we lost a way for the user to set their default back posture; to account for this, we embedded a reset button in the device itself that provided the same functionality. Overall, these various changes allowed for a more simplified device that could accommodate a wider breadth of users.

Overview and Discussion

The implemented functionality is displayed in Video #1 below.  The user can attach the device to a shoulder of their choice, press the top of the device to set a default posture and then reap the benefits of automatic feedback during back posture deviations.  The user can always set a new default back posture by pressing the top of the device.  In Image #1 you can see the accelerometer and piezo sensor, providing posture input and sound output respectively.  In Image #4 you can see the final prototype, complete with colorful tape.  A “user” wears the PostureParrot of their choice in Image #5.

In order to make our prototype work, we needed to attach tape to the bottom of the device so that it would stick to the user’s shoulder.  Hopefully, this can be replaced with a more permanent solution in the future.  Additionally, we would like to make the PostureParrot a wireless product.  Currently, our battery options would more than double the weight of the device.  We’re going to have to do more research to find a good solution for power if we want to get rid of the need for a USB cable.

To connect the analog textile press button, we modeled some of our code off of a tutorial from plugandwear.com, where we purchased the button.  The code is posted below.

int softPot = 0; // this line selects the input pin a0 for the sensor
int ledPin = 13; // this line selects the pin 13 for the LED output
int tempPot = 0; // variable to store the value coming from the sensor

void setup() {
  // this line declares the ledPin as an OUTPUT:
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); 
}

void loop() {
  // read the value from the soft potentiometer
  tempPot = analogRead(softPot);   
  // it turns the LED on
  digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); 
  // stop the program for  milliseconds:
  delay(tempPot);         
  // turn the LED off:       
  digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);  
  // stop the program for for  milliseconds:
  delay(tempPot);                 
}

Video and Images

Video #1 (A video of a user completing all three tasks.  Listen carefully for PostureParrot feedback.)

PostureParrotM4V

Image #1

Underlying circuitry, including an arduino, accelerometer, piezo sensor, textile analog pressure sensor and wiring.

Image #2

Circuitry enclosed by elastic wrap and textile sensor.

Image #3

Device wrapped in colorful electric tape.

Image #4

PostureParrot on the left shoulder of a “user”.

Group #7: Colonial Club

David, John and Horia

Project Summary

We are making a system that helps users to maintain good posture while sitting.

Test Method

Obtaining informed consent

We obtained informed consent by providing a form for our test-users to form.  Here is the link: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8267147/Consent%20Form.doc

Selecting participants

Participants were selected based on how we felt they would fit with the target-user group.  If we saw the person as someone who did not sit at a desk for extended hours, then we wouldn’t use them as a test user.  The people we picked were generally people who were known to sit at desks for extended hours and enjoy using technology to improve their lives.

Testing Environment

Our testing environment was set up essentially the same as described in P3.  We had a desk with a computer and a desk chair with good back support.  The paper prototype of the desktop application was placed on the screen.  The paper prototype of the back device was placed on the user’s back.

Testing Procedure 

1. John greeted the test user and gained informed consent.
2. David generally described the system and its purpose.
3. David read the script to the demo while John acted out the demo.
4. David read the task scripts while John gave functionality to the paper prototypes.
5. John thanked the participant
6. The group discussed the notes taken about the participant’s actions

Demo Script:

We are eval­u­at­ing a sys­tem that makes users aware of bad pos­ture dur­ing extended hours of sitting.  We want our sys­tem to quickly alert peo­ple in the event that they have bad back pos­ture so that they can avoid its asso­ci­ated neg­a­tive long term effects.

Here is a short example of our prototype in use.  The user first puts the prototype onto their back, taking note of the labeled top and bottom sections.  The user then opens up the desktop application that interacts with the prototype.  This application dis­plays rel­e­vant back pos­ture infor­ma­tion and sta­tis­tics to the user.

 

Task #1 Script

For the first task, you will be setting the desired back posture through the desktop application that you hope to maintain.  This should be a healthy back posture.

Task #2 Script

For this task, you will deviate your back posture from your desired back posture.  You will then respond to the feedback generated by the prototype to correct your back posture.

Task #3 Script

For this last task, you will look at how your back posture changed over time. Additionally, view how your posture has changed for each of the three specific regions of your back.

Results

We found that our users were generally well-capable of performing the first two tasks. However, one subject was confused when asked to set the default back posture, and was unsure whether to complete this task through the GUI or the device itself. In regards to the second task, all three subjects readjusted their posture back to its original position in response to the vibration feedback provided.

Our third task produced a great deal of critical problems, many of which were common throughout all three test trials. All three subjects felt that the graph needed information, including the units for time and posture deviance. They also found it difficult to differentiate between graphs and often missed the legend in the top left until the end of the experiment. One subject proposed using a diagram of the spine to display problematic areas when appropriate (i.e. glow red in areas where the user has poor posture.) Another user swiped their finger across the graph to see if any information would result; additionally, they tried right-clicking to bring up a menu / additional choices.

Discussion of Results

In future iterations, it may be beneficial to include more beginning-phase orientation, including explicit on-screen step-by-step instructions that guide the user through the putting on the device and setting the default posture. Having a diagram of the back can help easily demonstrate both the site and degree of poor posture, either in real time or as the user is scrubbing over the data with their cursor. Additionally, we learned that our graphs must become more readable, and could benefit from explicit units and differentiable, potentially color-coordinated, plots corresponding to each region of the back.

Subsequent Testing

Although our low-fidelity prototype made transparent several areas of improvement, we feel as though these issues are not pressing enough to justify an additional round of low-fidelity prototyping. These adjustments are relatively minor and are so easily implementable in code that an additional low-fidelity prototype may be redundant. Additionally, after considering the our timeline for both constructing and debugging the high-fidelity prototype, we unanimously agree that it should be our priority to begin this development as soon as possible, so that we may quickly test its usability.

Group 7 Members

David Lackey

Conducted an hour and a half of observations.  Led the blogging / project managed.

John O’Neill

Conducted an hour of observations and thirty minutes of interviews.  Led user-casing / user tasking.

Horia Radoi

Conducted 40 minutes of observations and interviews and was the primary story-boarder.

Overview

The problem that we are addressing is bad sitting posture with students who are working at desks.  Our proposed solution is a wearable posture detector in the form of an under armor shirt.  This solution addresses the problem because we can gather all of the necessary information about the user’s back posture and alert them through the device that they’re wearing.  It can be easily embedded in the user experience without taking too much away from the task at hand.

Description of Observations

Our target user group includes people who study at desks and who are concerned with their sitting posture.  Additionally, these people need to be comfortable with the idea of technology helping their well-being.  We could have focused on posture in other realms, such as weight-lifting, etc, but we wanted to focus on an application of posture where many people spend a great deal of time.  Also, back problems associated with sedentary life styles is quite common.

See Appendix for thorough collection of observations.

User 1

User number 1 is a female undergraduate who has a history of back-related problems and has to spend a majority of their day in front of a laptop. They often enjoy using their computer for non-work activities, including watching videos, but dislike how using a laptop often requires you to look down / crane your neck. One of their greatest priorities is being able to focus in on their laptop work for hours at a time. They are a great candidate, given their applicability to our target user group (undergraduates who work at desks,) their history of dealing with back issues, and their laptop-heavy workflow.

User 2

We were unable to conduct an interview with user 2, but, based on the hour and fifteen minutes that we observed her for, we were able to extract a lot of important information about long-term seating habits for a relevant target user.

She was studying scientific books in the Friend Engineering Center Library, meaning that it is very likely that she is some sort of engineering student.

User 3

Our third user does not study in libraries that often.  She does, however, study in a chair at a desk in her room.  Without the scrutiny of others, it’s harder for her to force herself to not slouch.  Her priorities include making her room a productive, but healthy place to study.  She likes to study in her room more than the library.

Observations

To observe people, we would sit towards the edges of large seating areas in libraries.  This allowed us to pinpoint students who seemed to be a part of the target user group.  We identified these students by their noticeably bad seating posture.

Each of our users were clearly dealing with discomfort from long periods of sitting.  To deal with it, they would often stretch their backs, change to another position, or rub their necks.  See the Appendix A for the minute by minute observations of user 2.  Many of the observed mannerisms (such as those discussed in the above paragraph) were present in our observations of other users as well.

We found user 3’s note about the scrutiny of others to be very interesting.  Being scrutinized by others actually has an impact on your posture.  Being able to impose this scrutiny artificially through the device could prove to be beneficial.

A unique thing about user 1 is that she had back problems earlier in life, so back posture is especially important.

In terms of workflow, users 1 and 2 both appreciated long periods of time to focus on work.  User 3, however, approached work with a more off and on approach.  User 3 said that this made it a little easier to maintain proper back posture, since it was for shorter periods of time.

Task Analysis

1. Who is going to use the system?

Undergraduate students who are concerned with their back posture while working and wish to improve it through the use of technology. Can be adapted to fit general people who are concerned about their posture while doing office work, or people who need a specific form for an athletic activity.

2. What tasks do they now perform?

Working at desks with improper back, neck, and wrist posture, often for extended periods of time (over 15 minutes in a single posture). This causes problems in the long run. A specific target group would be young adults, who are at the end of their growth period, and for whom a poor posture can have long-lasting health effects.

3. What tasks are desired?

To maintain proper posture while working at a desk.

4. How are the tasks learned?

An extremely basic, printed walkthrough will accompany the hardware. This manual will explain how a user sets a “default” / “base” posture, and what will happen when one deviates from the base posture. At the same time, a doctor can set up a desired position during a consultation, and the user will have the choice to move between his personal mode or the doctor suggestion.

5. Where are the tasks performed?

Wherever a student is working at a desk (the library, their room, etc.) or doing an activity that would put the back in a non-ideal position.

6. What’s the relationship between user & data?

The user can interact with the data and set up an ideal back position, can switch between two modes (one of which is considered to be a physician’s recommendation). The analysis and alerting will be done automatically.

7. What other tools does the user have?

None. He will interact with the computer through SET and CHANGE buttons, and will need to wear the hardware in order for it to function.

8. How do users communicate with each other?

They don’t. This is an individual product. Different modes can be loaded using the USB cable.

9. How often are the tasks performed?

It is recommended for users to wear the device every time their back will be in the same position for a long period of time (ie. while working, doing homework, working out etc.)

10. What are the time constraints on the tasks?

There will be no time constraints except for the battery life of the device.

11. What happens when things go wrong?

If things go wrong, the system may be encouraging bad back habits, which is counterproductive.

Description of Three Tasks

Task #1: Set up a desired back position.
The user must designate the “default” or “base” posture that will function as the user’s desired posture. This can be done by the user (or, for use cases outside of those we are studying, by a medical professional.) The user chooses a good posture and presses a button on the device to set the base;
the system will memorize this ideal position in order to record how far away the user deviates from it.

Difficulty Analysis

Finding a desirable posture requires no hardware or software – just an acute attention to how your body is feeling when undergoing certain postures. This means that our task is easy when performed using pre-existing tools and applications. Under a system, however, a “desired back position” has a specific definition and requires calibration, thus the level of difficulty is moderate.

Task #2: Alert user if back position / posture deviates too far from desired posture. Small motors in the system (ideally along the back / along the area of bad posture) will vibrate to notify the user that they have bad posture. We need to test whether we notify the user after a certain threshold of deviance (slouches too much,) if an improper posture is held for too long a duration (slouching for too long,) or some combination of the two.

Difficulty Analysis

One can currently ask another person to monitor their own posture, but this requires an additional person who is watching at all times, making this difficulty-level moderate. However, the device alerts the user automatically / without volition of the user, making this task difficulty easy.

Task #3: Monitor how their posture changes. User can optionally plug the wearable device into the laptop, which will record the readings of the resistors. We can use this data to show the users – in a nice, visual format – how often and how much they deviated from their ideal posture.

Difficulty Analysis

There may be some medical device that quantifies / provides feedback on a patient’s posture, but we are unaware of such things. This high barrier is why we are monitor this task as difficult. However, with this device, the user only needs to plug in the device, which is why we label this task as moderate.

Interface Design

Description

The system is a wearable device that helps users maintain good posture. It monitors the user’s back posture and alerts them when it deviates from a desirable position, and can optionally provide the user with data on when and by how much they deviate from their desired posture. In form, the device is similar to underarmor; this is because the slim fit allows the sensor to more accurately monitor changes in the user’s posture. If the user has a chance to plug the device into a laptop, a program can extract readings from the device, allow the user to view changes in their posture over time. Ideally, such a system would encourage healthier habits in regards to posture. To our knowledge, there is currently no wearable system is dynamically monitors and provides feedback for bad posture.

Storyboards

System Sketches

Appendix A – Minute by Minute Observations of User 2

• Where: Friend Library 2nd Floor
• When: 12:00 PM on 3/8/12
• Girl in green jacket sits and gets comfortable
  • Puts jacket around chair
  • Has a small world coffee
• First sits on edge of her seat and uses smartphone
• Stands up and starts to pull items out of backpack
  • Pulls out Windows computer
• Sits back down and rolls back sleeves
  • Ties back hair
  • Cleans glasses
• Looks out the window
• Immediate posture
  • Edge of seat
  • One foot on ground
  • Kind of hunched over computer
• Gets up and takes a photo of the snow with smartphone through window
• Sits back down
  • Feet all over the place
  • Upper body pretty steady
    • Both elbows out resting on the table
    • Head forward over keyboard
    • Shoulders close together
• After 5 mins, sits up tall briefly
  • Adjusts hair and maintains position for a few seconds
• Returns to a position with a lesser posture
  • Head is more forward and lower
  • More slumped over computer in general
• Slowly gravitates to original position over the course of several minutes
• When: 12:15 PM
• Legs reach a somewhat consistent form of being crossed
• Head gets lower again
• When: 12:21
• Rubs neck with left hand
• Rolls up sleeves and returns to work
• Reaches the new posture
  • Elbows still resting on table
  • Left hand on neck
  • Right hand using computer
• Puts on big green jacket
• Goes to original posture
• When: 12:40
• Hunched more forward
• Hunches over her phone every once in a while to send a text
• When: 12:45
• Leans more on right side
• Sits up tall and puts elbows close together as a stretch
• Almost back to original posture, elbows slightly more in
• Elbows out again, more slump
• Leans way forward with arms on lap and stays with this new posture
• Leans back in chair after brief back twist stretch
• Leans forward again
• Gets up and throws coffee away
• When: 12:50
• Arms on lap, hunched forward
• leaning forward on right arm
• Sits tall and scoots chair forward so that her back is flush to the back of the chair and she’s close to desk
  • Arms on lap
• When: 1:00
  • Left elbow on chair’s left arm
  • Leans
• When: 1:10
• Shift from elbow to elbow on chair’s arms
• Looks uncomfortable
• When 1:15
• Stretches back backwards over chair
• Leans forwards again with arms on lap