Assignments
Empathize
This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.
You have been made a TEACHER in a course on UR Courses, so that you can gain a different perspective on UR Courses (because you are normally a STUDENT).
For this assignment, please define and describe an activity that a teacher could create for their students that includes one UR Courses “activity” that allows a grade to be assigned upon completion and one UR Courses “resource” whose access is restricted based on the grade earned on the “activity”. As you complete your activity with the UR Courses interface, reflect on your experience.
Specifically, you are asked to:
-
Define and describe an activity that meets the requirements
- Create an empathy map while you complete your activity within
your course on UR Courses:
- claim 1 “Section” by changing the label to your own name (there are enough blank sections for everyone - so be nice and don’t claim someone else’s section!)
- add to your section:
- One “activity” that allows you to assign a grade upon completion
- One “resource” whose access is restricted based on the grade earned from your activity
- Describe whatever opportunities for redesign that you find by relating it (or them) in terms of your personal experience of completing your activity.
Submission
- submit a single pdf document on UR Courses
- target: 1 page for a description of your activity with 1 page for a screen capture of your Section, 1 page for the empathy map and 1-2 pages for the opportunities for redesign
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activity Described (2.0) | Includes everything as requested | Includes mostly all as requested | Not described as requested | Not described |
| Activity Completed (2.0) | Everything done as requested | Mostly done as requested | Not done as requested | Not completed |
| Empathy Map (3.0) | All quadrants done well | Entries in all quadrants | Few entries, lacking detail | Substantially incomplete |
| Opportunities for Redesign (3.0) | Thoroughly explored | Complete | Lacks detail | Opportunities not identified |
Calculator
You Choose (Undergrad)
This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment for undergraduate students.
Consider the class themes that we have discussed and will consider. Please see the page of Topics for a guide.
Write approximately 1000 words (or equivalent) about your chosen topic as an essay or you are welcome to consider other forms of deliverable that are more meaningful to you — such an HTML/JavaScript implementation of some ideas discussed in class (perhaps extending something from https://github.com/dhhepting/dhhepting.github.io).
It must deal with class themes in some way, and your ideas about that connection are important. You might focus your efforts on researching smaller assessment questions (from Topics), examining the usability of software that you use, writing some code to test an idea, and so forth.
Your submission should include between 2 and 4 external references ( NOT wikipedia).
Submission
- submit a pdf document
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic (2) | Topic actively engages an important issue related to class | Topic engages an important issue related to class | Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class | Topic does not engage an important issue related to class |
| Content (4) | Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively. Realization of approach is clear and well-formed | Deliverable is used appropriately. Realization of approach is reasonable | Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately. Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed | Deliverable is not used appropriately. Realization of approach is not clear |
| Presentation (4) | Ambitious and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat thorough | Not thorough |
Calculator
Research Paper Review (Grad)
This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment for graduate students.
Choose a recent (within the last year) conference paper (with at least 8 pages) that is new to you, from ACM SIGCHI conferences (including CHIPLAY).
Critically read the paper and write a summary of it, according to Fong’s alternative method for reviewing papers:
- What is the purpose of the work?
- How do the authors achieve their purpose?
- Why did they adopt their particular approach?
- Do you think their purpose has been achieved?
- What insights have you gained from reading this work?
Finally, include an explanation of why you chose this paper.
Your summary should be approximately 1000 words.
Submission
- submit a pdf document
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is the purpose of the work? (2.0) | Thoughtful and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat complete | Substantially incomplete |
| How do the authors achieve their purpose? (2.0) | Thoughtful and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat complete | Substantially incomplete |
| Why did they adopt their particular approach? (2.0) | Thoughtful and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat complete | Substantially incomplete |
| Do you think their purpose has been achieved? (2.0) | Thoughtful and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat complete | Substantially incomplete |
| What insights have you gained from reading this work? (2.0) | Thoughtful and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat complete | Substantially incomplete |
Calculator
Understand Your Project
In consultation with the members of your group, select an existing website or software application, with which you are all familiar and for which you can identify some opportunities for redesign and improvement. No group may choose this (Dr. Hepting’s) website. We will use it for examples in our meetings.
This is the first of three parts to the project, which mirror the 3 stages of the design thinking process (as described by the Nielsen Norman Group): understand, explore, and materialize.
The understand stage, comprising empathize and define steps, is the focus of this assignment. Focus on well-defined activities that well-defined users are trying to perform.
- describe: each member of your group will describe, with sufficient detail to be relatable, an activity and a user wanting to complete that activity.
- empathize: each member of your group will create an empathy map for each activity (and user). If there are 4 people in your group, each person will do 4 empathy maps and your group’s submission will have 16 in total.
- define: together as a group, identify specific aspects of the current interface that cause problems for the users and look to examine the roots of those problems. Identify whatever user needs may be unmet.
Remember that this stage is concerned with understanding the opportunities for redesign with your selected website or software application. Do not provide solutions or fixes now: that will come later.
Submission
- submit a pdf document (1 per group) on UR Courses that includes all three parts (describe, empathize, and define)
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of Activities (1.5) | Clear and compelling | Concrete | Lacks detail | Substantially missing |
| Description of Users (1.5) | Clear and compelling | Concrete | Lacks detail | Substantially missing |
| Empathy Maps (3.0) | All quadrants done well by all | Entries in all quadrants | Few entries, lacking detail | Substantially incomplete |
| Problems and Unmet Needs (3.0) | Thoroughly explored and documented (without indicating solutions) | Quite complete | Not enough requirements or detail | Missing requirements and detail |
| Writing (1.0) | Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience | Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work | Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work | Consistently uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and syntax that makes it difficult for others to follow |
Calculator
Explore Project
Based on your understanding, design!
Recall the diagram that illustrated the article about Design Thinking from the Nielsen Norman Group. We are now moving to the explore phase.
The focus now shifts from understanding the problems to proposing solutions for those problems. Using the results from the last project assignment, state the specific activity that your representative user will perform. If you had many activities in the last project assignment, please focus at this stage on 1 substantial activity that accomplishes a meaningful goal for the user.
Consider how the user will complete the activity:
- which interface metaphors (see Sections 3.4 and 12.3 in textbook) would be suitable to help users understand the activities?
- which interaction type(s) (see Section 3.5 in textbook) would best support the users’ activities?
- do different interface types suggest alternative design insights or options?
Choose 2 different metaphors and design an interface for each of the metaphors that you choose. For both interfaces:
- Create a low-fidelity prototype (see Section 12.2 in textbook)
- Write a scenario (see Section 11.5 in textbook) that includes details of the information presented and interaction undertaken
- Analyze your scenario for positive and negative aspects and iterate your low-fidelity prototypes and scenarios to minimize the negative aspects and maximize the positive aspects. Describe the results of this iteration process
Submission
- submit a pdf document (1 per group)
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interface A Low-Fidelity Prototype (Sketch) (2.0) | clear and complete | comprehensible | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Interface A Description (1.5) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Interface A Iteration Process Description (1.5) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Interface B Low-Fidelity Prototype (Sketch) (2.0) | clear and complete | comprehensible | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Interface B Description (1.5) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Interface B Iteration Process Description (1.5) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
Calculator
Materialize 1
Based on your designs, test and refine!
Recall the diagram that illustrated the article about Design Thinking from the Nielsen Norman Group. We are now moving to the materialize phase.
The focus now shifts to testing your low-fidelity prototypes. Each member of your Project group will conduct 1 test with each of your Project group’s 2 low-fidelity interface prototypes. The tests will be arranged from within your Testing groups, most of which will have 3 members. Use UR Courses to coordinate with your Testing group members. For illustrative purposes, consider a Testing group with Bob, Fanhua, and Premla as members. Each of them will arrange 2 meetings for testing:
- Bob and Fanhua arrange to meet:
- Bob tests his Project group’s Interface A with Fanhua
- Fanhua tests his Project group’s Interface B with Bob
- Bob and Premla arrange to meet:
- Bob tests his Project group’s Interface B with Premla
- Premla tests her Project group’s Interface A with Bob
- Fanhua and Premla arrange to meet:
- Fanhua tests his Project group’s Interface A with Premla
- Premla tests her Project group’s Interface B with Fanhua
IMPORTANT: Your Testing group should not have more than one member from any Project group
In your tests, you are asking someone to take on a role as your user and then complete the task for which you are redesigning the interface. Explain the task and ask your participant to perform the task, without giving instructions about how to do it. This information will be recorded in a script, that all group members will use to run their tests. Writing and reviewing the script is a group effort. Once you start testing with your participants, do not make any changes to your script.
You may find the downloads related to the ZipCar website test useful.
During your tests, you will collect both quantitative and qualitative data and you will also make notes.
You should submit all of your raw data and submit a summary of how it was collected: by whom, from whom, when, and where. Each of your group members will collect data from 1 test of your Interface A and 1 test of your Interface B. All tests will use the same script and other materials.
Provide an analysis of your data. Did the data that you collected from your participants reveal any agreement or disagreement about your interface designs? Were the results surprising in any way?
Based on your experience with your project and your testing of your low-fidelity prototypes, create a single interface design that combines the best ideas from your two low-fidelity prototypes and any other sources.
Submission
- submit a pdf document (1 per group)
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Script and Materials (2.0) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Qualitative Data and Notes from Test Sessions (1.5) | clear and complete | comprehensible | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Quantitative Data (1.5) | clear and complete | comprehensible | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Analysis and Summary of Data (1.0) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
| Explanation of and rationale for design choices made to create a single refined interface design representation (4) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
Calculator
Materialize 2
Create a 5-10 minute video to present your project.
- Identify your project and your opportunity for redesign
- Discuss your 2 low-fidelity designs (and metaphors)
- Describe what you learned from your evaluations
- Discuss how your high-fidelity prototype incorporates what you have learned
- Demonstrate your high-fidelity prototype
Although it would be preferable to have all group members involved in creating the presentation, this is not required.
You may choose the privacy setting for your youtube video (public, unlisted, and private). If you choose private, please ensure that the instructor and marker are granted access.
Submission
- submit a link to your video on youtube (1 per group) using UR Courses
Grading
- on time but the written instructions for the submission were not followed: deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late (but within 48 hours of the due date and time): deduct 10% of the earned grade
- late by more than 48 hours: deduct 20% of the earned grade
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
Rubric
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify Project and Opportunity for Redesign (1.0) | ||||
| Discuss your 2 lo-fi designs (and metaphors) (2.0) | ||||
| Describe what you learned from your evaluations (1.0) | ||||
| Discuss how your hi-fi prototype incorporates what you have learned (1.0) | ||||
| Demonstration of hi-fi prototype simulation (5.0) |