Files
Assessment Brief 1 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 Subject Code and Name DES1060 Interface and Experience Design Assessment Number 2 Assessment Title Low-Fidelity Prototype Assessment Type Individual - Prototype and Testing Report - (1) Length or Duration Between 1000 words +/- 10% Subject Learning Outcomes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Submission Date / Time Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday end of Module 7 (Week 7). Weighting 20% Assessment Purpose This assessment provides an opportunity to apply and communicate your understanding of some user experience deliverables required in industry. This includes information architecture, rapid paper prototype creation techniques, user testing techniques, user-centred design principles and research. You will also demonstrate your ability to analyse information and feedback when designing a product or service. Assessment Task / Item You are required to develop and test a basic paper prototype of a website/app concept to identify any issues with the user experience, and deliver a report detailing the prototype testing process and results. Assessment Instructions For this assessment, you must develop a functional paper prototype, test it with five (5) users, then write and submit a report discussing your findings. The report should meet the following guidelines: ● Maximum of 1000 words ● Landscape orientation ● Include a cover sheet with student name and number ● Contents page ● Numbered headings ● Correct grammar and spelling and referencing. Assessment Brief 2 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 Your report should include the headings below and address the criteria mentioned within each one. 1. Executive Summary In about 100 words summarise your findings. ● Summary of key findings ● Place in here the most important two or three findings from your testing ● Mention any pressing issues you uncovered (Subject matter, Method of analysis, Findings) 2. Information Architecture Provide images of your Information Architecture and explain your results in 100 words. This section should include: ● A sitemap, either hand-drawn or drawn with software applications (e.g. flow map, draw.io, lucidchart etc). ● Card sort results and evidence (photographs or screenshots of testers). These can either be done manually by hand or using a digital tool. ● Results in a visual format to demonstrate the effect of the card sort on the sitemap/menu. 3. Low Fidelity- Paper Prototype This section should include: ● The paper is a prototype based on your user flow ● A link to your Low fidelity - paper prototype. ● All the relevant screens. 4. Usability Test Documentation Using the criteria below discuss your Usability Test Documentation in around 375 words. This section should include: ● An outline of usability test goals. ● The usability testing method used. ● A facilitator’s script. ● 3x User tasks and scenarios. ● Pre and post-test questionnaires. ● Test recording document(s) and consent forms (if required). (Minim 5 testers) 5. Analysis and Discussion Assessment Brief 3 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 This section requires discussion, in about 300 words, on the usability testing results, card sort and questionnaires, and should include: ● Examples of both qualitative data (e.g. comments, feelings, quotations) and quantitative data (charts, tables and numbers). ● At least five (5) ‘insights’ linked to screenshots of your prototype (summaries of your analysis into what you found in your test results). ● List any bugs your prototype had that consistently affected the user testing process. ● User Issues ranking by prioritised in order of importance for what must be fixed (cosmetic, minor, major, catastrophe) 6. Outline of Proposed Changes This section should be around 125 words and you should: ● Discuss changes that will be made to the prototype due to testing results. ● Include app/website screens with accompanying notes to illustrate changes to be made. 7. Testing Evidence (NA) This section requires: ● Photographic evidence or screenshots of video evidence of the test method, clearly showing student prototype and testers, including: o Who you tested; (e.g.: name, age, occupation and other demographic information) o Where you tested them (online or in-person?) o When you tested them (date and time of test) 8. Overview of Results ● List the issues again (show severity ranking). ● Then write a paragraph on the next steps to take. 9. References A section specifying the sources you used, all with correct Harvard referencing. 10. Appendices ● Prototype, Images or digital link ● All documentation from testing ○ B1. Script ○ B2. Consent Forms ○ B3. Questionnaires ○ B4. Task reporting notes ● Video links Assessment Brief 4 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 Submission All work must be submitted via Canvas in .pdf format, in the assignments section appropriate to this brief. Please ensure the above-mentioned submission date and/or time are adhered to, or penalties may apply. When submitting your work, please save your files using the naming convention below. [Student_ID]_[Surname]_[First Name]_[SubjectCode]_[Assessment_#] E.g.: 1234_Singh_Visha_PRG1002_Assessment_01 For more information on late submission, please see the Assessment Policy. Academic Integrity The integrity of the assessment process is fundamental for ensuring appropriate evaluation at AIT. All work submitted should be your own, and where additional resources are used, they must be referenced according to the Harvard style. Additionally, TurnItIn is available in the LMS to test plagiarism in your writing. For more information on academic integrity, please see the Academic Integrity and Academic Integrity Penalties Policies. Appeals Fair application of the assessment rubric, rules and guidelines should be administered for each assessment. If you feel an evaluation requires further consideration, you may be entitled to an appeal. For more information on your right to an appeal, please see the Assessment Appeals Procedure and Policy. Policies For access to the policies mentioned above and related to education at AIT, please see the footer of the AIT website, and follow the link named Education Policies and Procedures. Website: https://www.ait.edu.au https://www.ait.edu.au/ Assessment Brief 5 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 Assessment Rubric Task Descriptor (HD) High Distinction (D) Distinction (C) Credit (P) Pass (F) Fail Describe the information architecture of a system incorporating user-centred design principles Percentage of overall mark 20% System purpose, functionality or structure explained in a convincing, precise and succinct manner, clearly specifying how they were established in line with and match defined stakeholder needs; Clear evidence of card sorting and provided meaningful results using data analysis tools like dendrograms; Provided a neat professional sitemap showing the complete user flow, which is practical, simple and relevant; All screens are clearly labelled; Analysis shows that card sorting results have impacted the final site map; All visuals/images are clear, appropriate, relevant and legible. System purpose, functionality or structure described in detail, and specifically linked to defined stakeholder needs; Showed evidence of card sorting and provided meaningful results using data analysis tools like dendrograms; Provided a neat professional sitemap showing the user flow; All screens are clearly labelled; Analysis shows that card sorting results have impacted the final site map; Majority of visuals/images are relevant and legible. Clear description of system purpose, functionality or structure provided with a clear identification of stakeholder needs; Showed some evidence of card sorting and summary of results using data analysis. Provided a neat sitemap showing the user flow; Screens are labelled, but with some lacking clarity; Analysis indicates that card sorting results have impacted the final site map. Some visuals/images have been presented and are legible. Some description of system purpose, functionality or structure, which is somewhat ambiguous, and has evidence of stakeholder needs being considered, but not linked appropriately to the design; Showed basic evidence of card sorting and a basic summary of results; Provided a sitemap showing the user flow, which was not completely practical; Analysis is basic of card sorting with minor relevance to final site map; Very few visuals/images have been presented, although may not be completely relevant or legible. Poor or Incomplete description of system purpose, functionality or structure, with no evidence of stakeholder needs being addressed in design; Provided no card sorting evidence, or card sorting was done incorrectly. No or inadequate site map of application provided; No visuals provided or visuals are not legible. Assessment Brief 6 RTO: 90511 / CRICOS: 02155J / HE PROVIDER: PRV12005 DES1060 – Assessment 2 Brief _ v1.6_19112020 Develop an interface using paper prototypes Percentage of overall mark 25% Exceptionally developed prototype presented with all screens created, allowing for user testing to explore a the all functionality; No navigation errors are exist for any pages, outcomes or processes; Sketches/wireframes have been refined, are well designed, clear and professionally presented. Highly developed prototype presented with all screens created, allowing for user testing to