代写R语言编程|代写Python程序|代写Python编程|代做Processing

项目预算：开发周期：发布时间：要求地区：

Coursework Title: Interface Inquiry and Critique
Course Name: Human-Computer Interaction
Course Code: DECO2500/7250
Weighting: DECO2500: 40% and DECO7250: 30%
Report Submission: 3rd October 2023 by 8:30am (AEST)

1.Introduction
This is an individual piece of work. You are not allowed to work with anyone else during the completion of this assignment. You must submit your work on Blackboard on or before the due date/time.
The objective of this assignment is to demonstrate in practice the application of interface evaluation methods, to critically assess the usability of a user interface of your choice. Usability evaluations usually involve one or more experts who will go through the user interface and evaluate its usability using a set of HCI rules and evaluation frameworks. It can also involve end users’ participation to elicit potential usability issues.
In this assignment, you, as an individual expert, will conduct the evaluation using evaluation frameworks you have learned in this course: These methods include:
-Expert evaluations: Neilsen’s Heuristics, Schneiderman’s Golden Rules, Norman’s 7 Design Principles
-User-based evaluations: Think-aloud, time-on-task, SUS, etc.

2.Details of the Task
1.Choose an interface (a website, or a mobile application or a game or a AR/VR application). Some examples include: Microsoft Word, Gmail (web or mobile version), Blackboard, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, UQ website, Commonwealth Bank, ANZ Bank, An Australian govt website or mobile app, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Instagram, Bing, Netflix, TikTok, Snapchat, Telegram, WhatsApp, WeChat, Qantas, Alibaba, a mobile game of your choice, a VR/AR game or app, etc.
2.You must select ONE Expert Evaluation method and at least ONE User-based evaluation method (you can choose up to two, if you wish).
a.For the expert evaluation, for each heuristics/rule/principle, you will identify one example, which is either a compliance or a violation, or both. One instance cannot be used for two (or more) compliances or two (or more) violations, but an instance can be found both in a compliance and in a violation. In addition:
i.Overall, you need to find at least 1 violation of a heuristic/rule/principle and provide a severity rate between 1 and 3. If you find more violations, try to choose the ones with a higher severity rate.
ii.Provide 1 recommendation per violation that will address the problem and significantly improve the usability of the product.
b.For the User-based evaluation, describe the protocol, results, and conclusions. You will need to get at least 3 users involved in your test.

2.1Report Guidelines
The main body of your report should not exceed 20 pages (excluding title page, references, and appendix). The report should be suitably formatted, structured logically and be free from grammar and spelling errors. To prepare your report, you are advised to use a word processor (such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice/LibreOffice) that supports spelling and grammar checking. Your report must contain the following:
1.Title Page
2.Table of Contents (this means you must use page numbers)
3.Introduction – a short introduction that describes the interface you have chosen and discusses why and how an expert evaluation, and a user-based evaluation will help identify potential usability issues.
4.Summary table of compliance with heuristic/rules/principles – You will provide a summary table for compliance instances, the heuristic rule/principle, and the evidence, as shown below. Each table in your report should have a caption at the top.
# Instance of Compliance
Heuristic/ Rule/principle Evidence
1 Here you need to provide a very brief description of the instance (a phrase, not a sentence)
The heuristic/rule/principle e.g., #3 of Nielsen, or #1 of Golden Rules, or a Design Principle from Norman Here you need to provide the figure number and its caption. You could include more than
one figure details
2
...
Table 1: A summary of compliance instances

5.Summary table of violations and recommendations – You will provide a summary of heuristic/rule/principle violation instances, the heuristic/rule/principle, the evidence, the severity ratings, and recommendations to address the problem, in a table as shown below.
# Instance of Violation Heuristic Rule/principle
Evidence Severity Rating Recommendation

1 Here you need to provide a very brief description of the instance (a phrase, not a sentence)
The heuristic/rule/principle e.g., #3 of Nielsen, or #1 of Golden Rules, or a Design Principle from Norman Here you need to provide the figure number and its caption. You could include more than one figure details.
A severity rating e.g., 2 Here you provide a very brief description of the recommendation (a phrase, not a sentence)

2
...
Table 2: A summary of violations and recommendations
6.Description of Instances of Compliance – In this section, you will provide a detailed description of each instance of compliance in paragraphs (not bullet points).
a.You need to justify each instance, and your arguments must demonstrate your critical thinking and deep understanding of the heuristic/rule/principle that has been followed.
b.You must include screenshots (at least one per each instance) to illustrate your points and use arrows or shapes to highlight your points on the picture.
c.Each screenshot should have a figure number and a figure caption.
d.In your descriptions, you should mention the figure number for the screenshot(s).
7.Description of Violations – In this section, you will provide a detailed description of each problem and its recommendation in paragraphs (not bullet points).
a.You need to justify each instance, and your arguments must demonstrate your critical thinking and deep understanding of the heuristic that has been violated.
b.You need to justify very briefly the severity rating you have chosen based on the factors of frequency, impact of the problem and its persistence*1.
c.You must include screenshots (at least one per each instance) to illustrate your points and use arrows or shapes to highlight your points on the picture.
d.Each screenshot should have a figure number and a figure caption.
e.In your descriptions, you should mention the figure number for the screenshot(s).
f.You need to provide a short description of your recommendation/s that addresses each problem. You should provide solid arguments to justify this recommendation.
8.User-based evaluation– In this section, you will provide a detailed description of the User-based evaluation(s) you will have conducted. You need to:
a.Explain what the user task(s) were. You may choose one user task or more.
b.Why the method(s) you chose fits the task you are evaluating.
c.Provide a brief description of the testing protocol.
d.Report the results of the test and,
e.Provide a brief analysis of the result (e.g., mean completion time)
9.Conclusion – A brief summary of the interface you critically evaluated, a description of the key aspects of the two evaluations, and any significant or interesting findings with regards to the violations and compliances and user-based evaluation results.

2.2Presentation Guidelines
During teaching week 10, within your allocated studio, you will have to present your work in-class to your tutor. You will be allocated 5 minutes each.
Hurdle: students must achieve at least a Pass for this portion of the task to be eligible to pass the entire assessment. As an identity verified assessment, all students must be available for this part of the assessment item and must have their student card available for verification. All presentations must be given live.

3.What You Should Hand In
You should submit a single electronic file on Blackboard on or before the due date/time.
Your submission must be a single word-processed document that contains your interface inquiry report (Microsoft Word (.doc/.docx) or Pages (.pages) formats only. Note – PDF is acceptable but is not the preferred format.
No other forms of submission are allowed without prior written permission from the course coordinator.

4.Grading Scheme/Assessment Criteria*
Assessment Criteria Proportion weighting for criteria (%)
Report Introduction 15
Expert Critical Evaluation 30
User-based Evaluation 20
Conclusion 10
Structure, Writing Style, and Presentation of report 15
In-class Presentation 10

*please refer to the rubric on pages 7 – 8 for a detailed breakdown of each criteria

5.Guidelines
Correctly reference any resources that you use (you may use APA or IEEE referencing style: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/referencing/).

6.Recommended Resources
Making use of these specific tools and resources may be helpful for completing the task, e.g.:
Lecture/Studio Materials
Course-specific textbooks, such as:
oHartson & Pyla (2012), The UX Book
oPreece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design beyond human-computer interaction (Fifth ed.)
UQ Resources, such as (but are not limited to):
oAssignment types
oAssignment writing
oStudy skills
oLibrary
oReferencing, including using Google Scholar and referencing style guides
oCritical reading and analysis

7.Late Submission/Extenuating Circumstances
The submission of progressive assessment material on the due date as set out in the Electronic Course Profile (ECP) is the sole responsibility of the student. Students should not leave assignment preparation until the last minute and must plan their workloads to meet advertised or notified deadlines. It is your responsibility to manage your time effectively. Please refer to the ECP for more details.

8.Academic Misconduct
The University defines Academic Misconduct as involving ‘a range of unethical behaviours that are designed to give a student an unfair and unearned advantage over their peers’.
The University takes Academic Misconduct very seriously and any suspected cases will be investigated through the University’s standard policy. If you are found guilty, you may be expelled from the University with no award.
It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that you understand what constitutes Academic Misconduct and to ensure that you do not break the rules. If you are unclear about what is required, please ask.
It is also the responsibility of the student to take reasonable precautions to guard against unauthorised access by others to their work, however stored in whatever format, both before and after assessment.
For more information, please refer to the Electronic Course Profile (ECP).

9.Interface Inquiry and Critique Grading Criteria
Criteria/
Weighting High Distinction

Demonstrated evidence of exceptional achievement in relation to assessment criteria Distinction

Demonstrated evidence of advanced achievement in relation to assessment criteria Credit

Demonstrated evidence of proficient achievement in relation to assessment criteria Pass

Demonstrated evidence of functional achievement in relation to assessment criteria Fail

Minimal to Absence of evidence of achievement in relation to assessment criteria X (None)

No assessable work has been received
Introduction
(15%) Introduction is highly detailed and demonstrates an exceptional overview of the report, the interface that is critically evaluated, the evaluation methods and justification. Has been presented to an exceptional standard. Introduction is very detailed and demonstrates an extensive overview of the report, the interface that is critically evaluated, the evaluation methods and justification. Has been presented to a very high standard. Introduction is suitably detailed and demonstrates an effective overview of the report, the interface that is critically evaluated, the evaluation methods and justification. Has been presented to a suitable standard. Introduction is satisfactorily detailed and demonstrates an acceptable overview of the report, the interface that is critically evaluated, the evaluation methods and justification. Has been presented to an acceptable standard. Introduction is severely lacking detail and demonstrates an inability in providing overview of the report, the interface that is critically evaluated, the evaluation methods and justification. It does not sufficiently meet the requirements. This component is missing
Expert Evaluation
(30%) All rules/principles/heuristics are covered in the evaluation with exceptionally relevant instances, recommendations and severity ratings. All descriptions of compliances/violations are thoughtful, detailed, and complete to capture superior detail. All rules/principles/heuristics are covered in the evaluation with suitably relevant instances, recommendations and severity ratings. Most descriptions of compliances/violations are suitably detailed, and complete to capture a reasonable level of detail. Most rules/principles/heuristics are covered in the evaluation with satisfactory relevant instances, recommendations and severity ratings. Most descriptions of compliances/violations are thoughtful, detailed, and complete to capture superior detail. Some rules/principles/heuristics are covered in the evaluation, instances are not fully relevant. Severity ratings and recommendations are adequate. Most compliances/violations descriptions lack thought, detail, and/or are incomplete to capture minimal detail. Few/no rules/principles/heuristics are covered in the evaluation. Severity ratings and recommendations are not coherent. Instances are not relevant or do not illustrate a compliance/violation.
Most descriptions of compliances/violations severely lack details.
User Based Evaluation
(20%) The background, rationale, protocol, collection and analysis of data have all been presented to an exceptional standard The background, rationale, protocol, collection and analysis of data mostly been presented to a very high standard. The background, rationale, protocol, collection and analysis of data have largely been presented to a suitable standard. The background, rationale, protocol and/or
collection and analysis of data have barely been presented to an acceptable standard. Required evaluations have NOT been completed AND/OR do not sufficiently meet the requirements
Criteria/
Weighting High Distinction

Demonstrated evidence of exceptional achievement in relation to assessment criteria Distinction

Demonstrated evidence of advanced achievement in relation to assessment criteria Credit

Demonstrated evidence of proficient achievement in relation to assessment criteria Pass

Demonstrated evidence of functional achievement in relation to assessment criteria Fail

Minimal to Absence of evidence of achievement in relation to assessment criteria X (None)

No assessable work has been received
Conclusion
(10%) Conclusion is highly detailed and demonstrates creative application of knowledge, analysis, and skills. Has been presented to an exceptional standard. Conclusion is very detailed and demonstrates extensive application of knowledge, analysis, and skills. Has mostly been presented to a very high standard. Conclusion is suitably detailed and demonstrates effective application of knowledge, analysis, and skills. Has largely been presented to a suitable standard Conclusion is satisfactorily detailed and demonstrates acceptable application of knowledge, analysis, and skills. Has barely been presented to an acceptable standard. Conclusion is severely lacking detail and demonstrates an inability to apply knowledge, analysis, and skills and does not sufficiently meet the requirements This component is missing
Structure, Writing Style, and Presentation
(15%) The report has been presented to an exceptional standard. It has been organised very well and in a logical manner and is highly easy to follow. It communicates at an expert level with minimal to no spelling/grammar errors. The page limit has been adhered to well. The report has been presented to an advanced standard. It has been organised quite well and is very easy to follow. It communicates at a professional level. May contain limited spelling/ grammar errors. The page limit has been reasonably adhered to. The report has been presented to a competent standard. It has been organised well and is quite easy to follow. It communicates at an effective level. May contain some spelling/ grammar errors. The page limit has been mostly adhered to. The report has been presented to an acceptable standard. It has been organised adequately but may be hard to follow. It communicates at an appropriate level. May contain numerous spelling/grammar errors. The page limit has not been adhered to well. The report fails to meet the standard at this level. It is disorganised and communicates information or ideas in ways that are frequently incomplete, confusing, and not appropriate. Written expression is disjointed, and the report is badly structured with constant errors in spelling/grammar.
In-class Presentation
(10%) Coherent communication in the delivery of the presentation. Demonstrates exceptional knowledge of the work and is able to fully justify/explain evaluation choices. Language used is wholly appropriate to the target audience. Clear communication in the delivery of the presentation. Demonstrates advanced knowledge of the work and is able to reasonably justify/explain evaluation choices. Language used is mostly appropriate to the target audience. Competent communication in the delivery of the presentation. Demonstrates competent knowledge of the work and is able to effectively justify/explain evaluation choices. Language used is appropriate to the target audience. Adequate communication in the delivery of the presentation. Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of the work and is able to sufficiently justify/explain evaluation choices. Language used may be lacking appropriateness to the target audience. The presentation is disorganised, and information/ideas are communicated in ways that are frequently incomplete, confusing, and not appropriate. Demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of the work and an inability to justify/explain evaluation choices.