Assignment 1 GROUP
Due 30 Aug by 23:59 Points 15 Submitting a file upload File types pdf Available 20 Jul at 0:00 – 6 Sep at 23:59 about 2 months
This assignment was locked 6 Sep at 23:59.
COURSE NAME: User-centred Design
COURSE CODE: COSC2628
ASSIGNMENT TITLE: Assignment 1 Submission: Diving into the jungle WEIGHTING: 20%
DUE DATE: 1159PM 30th August 2020
Overview of Assignment
Description:
Step 1: Choose a platform/product Step 2: Analyse existing products Step 3: Conduct user research Step 4: Analyse your findings
IMPORTANT FILES:
Assignment Briefing v.125
User Research Template
Work Plan Sheet
PIF form
Example HD
Submission Format: Upload as PDF only.
Assessment declaration: When you submit work electronically, you agree to the Assessment declaration (https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-and- exams/assessment/assessment-declaration) .
Assignment 1 – User-centered Survey
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Proper user groups identified.
2.0 to >1.6 Pts Exemplary HD
User groups identified with correct attributes that are relevant to the client brief. Attributes are clear and there is clear differentiation between the groups. Number of groups met or exceeded requirement.
2.0 to >1.6 Pts Exemplary – HD
– Able to demonstrate a good understanding of the concept of target audience by choosing an application that matches the one in the client brief. – Have provided an excellent report on competitors that matches the scope of the project. – Included a task analysis that contains not just the main features of the application but also a good and specific breakdown of the main tasks with comments that demonstrates knowledge of usability concepts. – The analysis supported by screenshots that are clear, properly sized, cropped and labelled. – 3T.h0etaon>a2ly.s4isPctsontains no eErxreorms.plary – HD
– Demonstrated good classification and application of heuristics. The heuristics chosen makes sense. – Analysis contains specific usability issues that were explored in depth. It is clear to see what were the exact cause of the issues and how it may impact the tasks. – Supporting screenshots provided that were properly
1.6 to >1.4 Pts Accomplished – DI
User groups identified with correct attributes that are relevant to the client brief. Attributes are clear and there is clear differentiation between the groups. Number of groups met the
r e q 1 u . 6 i r e t mo e > n 1 t . s 4 . P t s Accomplished – DI
Able to demonstrate a good understanding of the concept of target audience by choosing an application that matches the one in the client brief. Have provided a clear report on competitors that matches the scope of the project. Included a task analysis that contains not just the main features of the application but also a breakdown of the main tasks with comments that demonstrates knowledge of usability concepts.
2.T4hteoa>n2a.l1ysPists Ascucpopmoprtleisdhbeyd – DI
screenshots that are – Demonstrated
clear and relevant. good classification
and application of heuristics. The heuristics chosen makes sense. – Analysis contains specific usability issues that were explored. It is clear to see what were the exact cause of the issues and how it may impact the tasks. – Supporting screenshots provided that were properly presented.
1.4 to >1.2 Pts Developing – CR
User groups may require further investigation qith regards to differentiation factor. Attributes are generally suitable and demonstrates a knowledge of the a user type. Number of groups met or may be lower
t h a 1 n . 4 r e t qo u > i r 1 e . d2 . P t s Developing – CR
– Able to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of target audience by choosing an application that roughly matches the one in the client brief. – Have provided a report on competitors that roughly matches the scope of the project but there are some applications mentioned that were not suitable. – Included a task analysis that contains not just the main features of the application but also mentioned some usability issues that were not explored. – The analysis were not supported by screenshots or if screenshots were present were not relevant. – The analysis contains some
2.e1rrtors>1w.i8thPrtesgards to Duesvaebloilpityincgla-imCsR.
– Demonstrated good classification and application of heuristics. Some of the heuristics may not make sense and have been misclassified. – Analysis contains specific usability issues that were explored. Although an explanation were provided it the analysis does not present evidence to support the veracity of the claims. – Supporting screenshots not provided for some or all of the issues.
1.2 to >0.0 Pts Beginning – PA
User groups provided may not suit the client’s brief or are just repeats with little to no differentiation factor. Attributes labels provided with no values. Number of groups are lower than required.
1.2 to >0.0 Pts Beginning – PA
– Able to demonstrate a good understanding of the concept of target audience by choosing an application that matches the one in the client brief. – Competitor analysis may be missing or only mentioned in brief (i.e. just the names and a line of what it does) – Have included a list of task but were not explored in terms of usability. – Did
1.8ntot >in0c.l0udPetsany Beagninanlyinsigs.- PA
– Heuristics were wrongly applied. Some of the heuristics may not make sense and have been misclassified. – Analysis contains specific usability issues that were only lightly explored. Issues were no sufficiently specific to understand what is the exact cause. – Supporting
0.0 Pts Missing
Could not be assessed to due either missing or wrongly applied.
2.0 pts
Sample application chosen and task analysis conducted
0.0 Pts Missing
Could not be assessed to due either missing or wrongly applied.
2.0 pts
Heuristic analysis.
0.0 Pts Criteria partially met.
3.0 pts
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Methodology
labelled, cropped and
3.2 to >2.8 Pts Accomplished – DI
– Reports contains clear and unambiguous methodology used to recruit participants via named channels, and also how the contextual inquiry was planned out. – Contextual inquiry report provided lists down all observations and contains sufficient readings. – Included the entire survey form either in the body or in the appendix. – Included the datasheet from the survey in the body or in the appendix. – Survey questions are within scope, relevant to the UI. – Survey questions are also not biased, too product focused or ambiguous in meaning and language. – Survey has a good mix of open and closed ended questions.
2.8 to >2.4 Pts Developing – CR
– Methodology used to recruit participants, and also how the contextual inquiry was planned out were mentioned but not sufficiently detailed. – Contextual inquiry report provided lists down all observations, but some entries were missing. – Included the entire survey form either in the body or in the appendix. – Included the datasheet from the survey in the body or in the appendix. – Survey questions is generic and does not focus on the UI. – Some survey questions are biased, too product focused or ambiguous in meaning and language. – Survey has a wrong balance of open and closed ended questions.
screenshots not
4.0 to >3.2 Pts
2.4 to >0.0 Pts
presented.
provided.
Exemplary – HD
Beginning – PA
– Reports contains clear and unambiguous methodology used to recruit participants via named channels, and also how the contextual inquiry was planned out. – Contextual inquiry report provided lists down all observations clearly and contains sufficient readings. – Included the entire survey form either in the body or in the appendix. – Included the datasheet from the survey in the body or in the appendix. – Survey questions are within scope, relevant to the UI and able to provide a sufficiently clear research direction. It is easy to understand that each question plays a role. – Survey questions are also not biased, too product focused or ambiguous in meaning and language. – Survey has a good mix of open and closed ended questions. – Survey uses the likert scale well with clearly defined qualifiers for each value.
– Methodology used to recruit participants, and also how the contextual inquiry was planned out were mentioned but not sufficiently detailed. – Contextual inquiry report provided lists down all observations, but some entries were missing. – Included the entire survey form either in the body or in the appendix. – Included the datasheet from the survey in the body or in the appendix. – Survey questions is generic and does not focus on the UI. – Some survey questions are biased, too product focused or ambiguous in meaning and language. – Survey has a wrong balance of open and closed ended questions. – Survey is too short to explore the issues, or have a large portion of it addressing the users instead of the UI.
0.0 Pts Criteria partially met.
4.0 pts
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Analysis and findings.
4.0 to >3.2 Pts Exemplary – HD
– Data on the participants are clearly presented in a table and/or chart at the beginning of the section. – Analysis provided a clear picture on the design direction of the application with regards to target audience, features that are high in demand as well as designs that should be avoided or be considered. – Analysis was supported by screenshots, user comments and/or data from the survey. – Analysis took into account the client’s brief and able to consolidate the data collected into specific strategies for the application design. – Screenshots provided are clear, properly labelled and cropped where relevant. – It was clear how each analytical point
3.2 to >2.8 Pts Accomplished – DI
– Data on the participants are presented at the beginning of the section. – Analysis provided a clear picture on the design direction of the application with regards to target audience, features that are high in demand as well as designs that should be avoided or be considered. – Analysis was supported by screenshots, user comments and/or data from the survey. – Screenshots
2.8 to >2.4 Pts Developing – CR
– The analysis provided some direction for the design but it was not easy to see the connection between the findings and the data. – Analysis was only lightly supported by screenshots and user comments. – There were too many graphs provided that focuses on just displaying the results. – The findings mostly presented the results and not the analysis for the design direction that should be taken. – It was not sufficiently clear how each analytical point can be traced back to the data. – There was no clear data of the participants in the form of prose, tables or charts.
2.4 to >0.0 Pts Beginning – PA
– Participants data may be missing or insufficiently described. – The analysis provided some direction for the design but it was not easy to see the connection between the findings and the data. – Analysis was hardly supported or there was not enough convincing information for the finding. – There were too many graphs provided that focuses on just displaying the results. – The findings mostly presented the results and not the analysis for the design direction that should be taken. – It was not sufficiently clear how each analytical point can be traced back to the data. – There was no clear data of the participants in the form of prose, tables or
Total points: 15.0
0.0 Pts Criteria partially met.
4.0 pts
can be traced back to the are provided. charts. data.