## 5 Results
### Robot Embodiment Design
#### 5.1.3 Robot Build
Participants associated the robot as \"cold\" [PU-15,38], having \"static electricity, and a chilly sensation\" [PJ21]. Another participant explained how they \"wouldn't want a metal arm coming at my head or my neck area\" [PU04]. Other participants mentioned how the robot's build should have a \"solid metal frame\" [PJ12], with the \"strength of steel\" [PU10], which are more positive attributes. The combination of a solid structure to provide support and soft coverings over that structure was desirable to 17 participants [PJ-12,17,41,48, PU-07,10,16,17,21,23,24,26,27,29,35, 37,38]. One participant said that they wanted \"the main body to have a solid structure, but the parts in direct contact should be made of natural materials, not cold, and feel like stuffed toys\" [PJ41]. Another explained that \"it looks like a decent thickness that you wouldn't necessarily feel the metal, but you would feel the strength of that steel underneath the softness\" [PU10]. Participants expressed that having the solid frame allowed for the robot to be strong/sturdy while also allowing comfort for areas that touch humans and \"prevent injury\" [PU02]. Participants made comparisons to _fabrics_ (e.g., wool, leather, polyester, vinyl) (\(n=10\)) and _plastic_ (\(n=7\)). Some participants explained fabrics that they would want to feel directly against their skin; \"I think polyester feels cold at night. Cotton and wool are not cold. It is washable\" [PJ41]. Participants noted that some materials have certain properties that would be desirable in building a caregiving robot, including temperature, durability, and cleanliness/hygiene. In terms of _temperature_, participants favored the idea that the robot should be similar  
Figure 10: Material Comparison Grouping. to the human body (\(n=21\)), warm (\(n=16\)), and just not cold (\(n=12\)). Participants explained \"just not cold\" as a disparity between their body temperature and their regional climate, such as \"winter time\" [PJ18] and \"snow country\" [PU13]. Concerning _durability_, participants expressed that their preference for a robot is that it is strong/sturdy (\(n=24\)), durable/resilient robot (\(n=8\)) and reliable (\(n=2\)), with some concerns that the robot would not be durable (\(n=5\)). Durability was often a concern when discussing materials that could be used for the robot, such as how \"silicon would be a good choice. Such materials are comfortable to the touch but seem to deteriorate quickly\" [PJ07]. Others explained that the durability and strength of the robot correlated with it having a solid frame; \"I would prefer something solid, maybe with light padding, but nothing that's going to squish or fall apart after a while\" [PU16]. Participants expressed concerns that the robot should be _safe_ (\(n=36\)) and not cause harm to the human if touched (\(n=25\)). Some explained that there should be a form of padding or softness to prevent bruising, as \"the older you get the more sensitive you are and you are easily bruised\" [PU-24,17,19,01]. An additional concern participants had in regards to the robot's build, was the ability to and ease of _cleaning_ the robot (\(n=14\)). Participants primarily desired the possibility of \"removable covers over some of the areas that are touching a lot so they could get washed or something\" [PU23] or that the robot should be \"either washable or water-resistant\" [PU07]. **Formed Attitudes about Robot Build. **_Impracticality of Tracks and Ceiling Locks._ As noted in Section 5.1.2, participants had negative attitudes (\(n=14\)) regarding the installation of locks and tracks into the ceiling of the OA homes. Participants viewed the installation of tracks as \"not practical\" [PU29,PU38], often mentioning this would especially not work in \"small houses\" [PU38], adding that \"you're tied to the one room where the tracks can take you\" [PU37] leading the PILLAR and DUO to be more \"restricted\" [PJ41] unless you \"put one in every room\" [PU27, PU29].