I’m curious to see what others think of this. At all events I’ve attended this year, I’ve run into people who are not FIRST junkies who have no idea what this term means. (Not-so-technical) family and friends visited me at West Michigan and said things to me about it, and I overheard comments at the other events. The announcers would say “Starting the tele-operated mode” or something like that and they’d say “Huh? What is that?”.
I don’t know why this term has gained so much popularity in the last year and a half, but wouldn’t it be simpler (and much better understood) to just say “remote-control period”?
I know, it’s a really minor thing, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to make the game more audience-friendly, especially for people who don’t know the game as well as we do?
Yeah, I kind of hated it from Day One and I thought it wouldn’t be used much at all, like the term “Singleton”.
Human controlled/remote controlled/anything like that and would be easy to understand for the newcomers would be best.
I don’t know why this term has gained so much popularity in the last year and a half, but wouldn’t it be simpler (and much better understood) to just say “remote-control period”?
My theory on its popularity is because it is termed as such in the rule book, so that’s what people call it.
I’m guessing that it isn’t called remote-control period because of the stigma of people saying “hey, you’re not making robots, you’re just making big remote control cars”. Saying remote-control period might reinforce that reaction.
It does sound confusing, that’s why I always call it the human control period, or just say something like ‘driver’s step forward and take control’ because it’s straight forward and honestly sounds better than a tele-operated period.
It is called the “teleoperated period” because that is what it is. “Teleoperated” and “autonomous” are common, industry-standard terms used to describe the type of control used by a remotely operated device.
I believe that it is our responsibility to be as technically accurate as we can when describing what we are doing, while still communicating effectively. Sometimes that requires that we increase the knowledge of those with whom we discuss the program. Given the alternative - that we simplify our discussion of the machines we build and the games we play to the point that they lose any real meaning - it is worth the effort.
Is “teleoperated” a term that may not be completely understood by all members of the audience the first time they hear it? Perhaps. But if you see that happening, then you might consider using it as an opportunity to educate them about the technology and what we are doing. Help them understand the differences between the FIRST teams that build “teleoperators” and “robots.” Explain how the very best machines for the FRC game are telerobotic devices (and for today’s bit of trivia, that is a term coined about 40 years ago by Tom Sheridan from MIT - who just happens to be Woodie Flowers’ office mate). With that understanding comes a new level of appreciation for the accomplishments of the teams.
I would much rather educate the audience than dumb-down the game.
Using a term that the audience already understands does not “dumb down the game”, if anything, it allows the audience to more quickly gain an understanding of what is going on. There was a push a few years ago (and is still going on i presume) to make the games easier for a television audience to understand. Your suggestion of educating the audience about the differences between teleoperated robots and autonomous robots is hard to do when the audience is behind a television screen and may not catch the one spot where the commentators explain the what “teleoperated” means.
While i agree it is our responsibility to be as technically accurate as we can be, you wouldn’t go explaining the refrigeration cycle to your grandmother using terms like thermodynamic reversibility.
The term “teleoperated” has only been a confusion to the audience, and an oddity to those of us who have always known that period of the game as “operator control period” or “remote control period”.
I would much rather have people understand how the game is played than be seen as presumptuous techno-geeks. If the audience is interested enough they will get learn the terminology.
I’m with Dave on this one. I like the use of the term teleoperated. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be used. On that line we should call autonomous no-control mode. Autonomous and teleoperated go together and they are the more professional terms. I think we should keep them, but I don’t think FIRST would change it without an overwhelming turn against it.
As a non-engineering mentor, I want to know the correct terminology for a variety of reasons.
One example would be, when we are in competition and the team has visiting guests, I want to be able to discuss the game with them using the correct terminology and explaining it if needed.
I don’t have the FIRST booklet/program at hand that is distributed at the competition venues so I cannot check it it see if we are doing this already. One thing that would be simple to do would be to list the vocabulary words and definitions that will be used during the competition - such as the term, teleoperated.
AT UCF, a parent brought his 5 year old son over to the volunteer table to talk to me about the game. He wanted to know details. He also wanted to explain the game to me as much as he understood it. He didn’t want to be dumbed down and he was 5. I was able to use words like teleoperated and autonomous with him and see what he understood. He got those, what he didn’t get was how valuable the ramps were. He knew they were valuable and wanted to understand exactly how much, point wise.
So by this response I assume calling it a “remote-controlled period” would be incorrect? I have no doubt that there are subtle differences, but I’m not clear on what they are.
I’m simply trying to point out feedback that I heard from “outsider” visitors. Not all who visit are lucky enough to know someone who’s competing to explain things to them (and yes, of course I explained it to my guests). If “remote-controlled period” does not adequately describe it then I would be in agreement with your statement, however to me it seems to describe it just fine.
When we litter the competition with technical jargon that is unlikely to be known to a non-engineering audience, it is my opinion that rather than make engineering seem more mainstream, cool, and fun it has the opposite effect of making our competition appear elitist. Should I tell the next person who asks, “Sorry, FIRST didn’t want to dumb it down for you”? I’m not so sure that that would lead to the acceptance of engineers as superstars like FIRST wants.
But alas, as I said before it’s not that important. Anyway, it was worth a shot.
I am also with Dave on this. Use the correct word for the correct situation.
I subbed for a math teacher several years ago who taught Algebra one-repeater. She told me to call the numerator and denominator of fractions “the top number and the bottom number” because “it’s not like these kids need to know the correct terms…they’re not going to be mathematicians or engineers.” I about fainted.
