Use the referenced heuristics to assess and then write a critique of the website, with respect to your typical usage of the website. You may organize your submission under the headings of "Neilsen's Heuristics", "Budd's Heuristics", and "Critique".
Within your critique, consider the relative utility of these heuristics in helping you to capture the strengths and weaknesses of the website: are the two heuristics equally useful or is one better than the other? Do you see anything missed by the use of these heuristics?
Submit your work in a single file via URcourses.
|Criterion and Weight||(E)xcellent (3/3)||(S)atisfactory (2/3)||(P)oor (1/3)||(U)nacceptable (0/3)|
|1. Neilsen's Heuristics (2.0)||Thoroughly reviewed (3/3)||Reviewed (2/3)||Little review (1/3)||No review (0/3)|
|2. Budd's Heuristics (2.0)||Thoroughly reviewed (3/3)||Reviewed (2/3)||Little review (1/3)||No review (0/3)|
|3. Critique (3.0)||Thorough and thoughtful (3/3)||Complete (2/3)||Somewhat complete (1/3)||Not completed (0/3)|
|4. Writing (0.5)||Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience. Presentation cites sources appropriately (3/3)||Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble with presentation. Presentation cites some sources appropriately (2/3)||Shows some evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have some trouble with presentation. Presentation cites only some sources somewhat appropriately (1/3)||Incorrect grammar and spelling are apparent throughout, making it difficult for others to follow. Presentation does not cite any sources appropriately (0/3)|