DfA/DfD-informed mechanical redesign of the RSC chassis raised developers' perceived usability from Poor (SUS 59.4) to Excellent (SUS 89.4)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a within-subjects benchmark, four RSC developers rated the v4.1 chassis substantially more usable than v4, with SUS jumping from 59.4 (Poor) to 89.4 (Excellent). → Farnaz Baksh 2026

Evidence¶

Farnaz Baksh 2026¶

Farnaz Baksh, Matevž B. Zorec, Feiazie Baksh, and Karl Kruusamäe. (2026). Co-Creating Buildable and Open Social Robot Study Companions with University Students. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15239 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15239

q2 · i? · design · r2

Study 1, a within-subjects benchmark with four RSC development-team members comparing v4 and v4.1 across full assembly and disassembly cycles, reports this SUS change. The article reports "jumping from 59.4 (v4,Poor) to 89.4 (v4.1,Excellent)"; no effect size or test statistic is printed, so impact is null.

"The v4.1 redesign resulted in a rise in perceived usability with SUS scores (Fig. 5a) jumping from 59.4 (v4,Poor) to 89.4 (v4.1,Excellent)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The v4.1 redesign reduced mean developer assembly time from 21.4 to 13.7 minutes, but the first-attempt-only mean was 20.4 minutes, with the further reduction reflecting a junior learning effect — related
• First-time builders completed the v4.1 build in a mean of 39.1 minutes with SUS 74.6 (Good), but showed higher assembly Mental Demand than developers and tactile fragility concerns around snap-fit components — related
• The v4.1 redesign achieved tool-free serviceability, with disassembly workload reduction consistent across all measures and disassembly rated near-perfectly easy — related