Week of | Meetings | Topics | Items of Note |
---|---|---|---|
Mon-08-Jan-2024 | 01 02 | Welcome, Foundations of Usability |
First class meeting January 9 |
Mon-15-Jan-2024 | 03 04 | ||
Mon-22-Jan-2024 | 05 06 | ||
Mon-29-Jan-2024 | 07 08 | ||
Mon-05-Feb-2024 | 09 10 | ||
Mon-12-Feb-2024 | 11 12 | ||
Mon-19-Feb-2024 | Reading Week (Monday is Family Day). No class meetings. |
||
Mon-26-Feb-2024 | 13 14 | ||
Mon-04-Mar-2024 | 15 16 | Midterm to be held on Tuesday, March 5 |
|
Mon-11-Mar-2024 | 17 18 | ||
Mon-18-Mar-2024 | 19 20 | ||
Mon-25-Mar-2024 | 21 22 | ||
Mon-01-Apr-2024 | 23 24 | ||
Mon-08-Apr-2024 | 25 26 |
Times | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
00:00-08:30 | |||||
08:30-09:00 | |||||
09:00-09:30 | |||||
09:30-10:00 | |||||
10:00-10:30 | |||||
10:30-11:00 | Office | Office | |||
11:00-11:30 | |||||
11:30-12:00 | |||||
12:00-12:30 | |||||
12:30-13:00 | |||||
13:00-13:30 | |||||
13:30-14:00 | |||||
14:00-14:30 | |||||
14:30-15:00 |
CS-315+733 DHH URC |
CS-315+733 DHH URC | |||
15:00-15:30 | |||||
15:30-16:00 | |||||
16:00-16:30 | |||||
16:30-17:00 | |||||
17:00-17:30 | |||||
17:30-23:59 |
This assignment can be done individually or in groups
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
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following 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 (2.0) | All quadrants done well | Entries in all quadrants | Few entries, lacking detail | Substantially incomplete |
Opportunities for Redesign (2.0) | Thoroughly explored | Complete | Lacks detail | Opportunities not identified |
In consultation with the members of your group, select a single facet of groups within moodle (UR Courses) for which you will identify opportunities for redesign and improvement. Use the “Experiment with UR Courses” course, where you have teacher-like access to gain experience with groups in UR Courses. Remember to choose just one use of or interface to groups: You will find groups under the Participants menu on the main course page where there are 3 choices for groups, groupings, and overview; in the settings page for Assignments; in the submissions page for Assignments; in the group members resource; in the enrolled users list, also under the Participants menu; and doubtless other places where their impact is felt. Dr. Hepting will be happy to provide stories about using groups in UR Courses. You may also check the moodle documentation and moodle forums for information. You might identify issues with consistency, efficiency, or missing functionality, to name a few.
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 a well-defined activity that a well-defined user is trying to perform.
Remember that this stage is concerned with understanding the opportunities for redesign of your selected aspect of groups within UR Courses. Do not provide solutions or fixes now: that will come later.
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following 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 (2) | Clear and compelling | Concrete | Lacks detail | Substantially missing |
Description of Users (1) | Clear and compelling | Concrete | Lacks detail | Substantially missing |
Empathy Maps (2) | All quadrants done well by all | Entries in all quadrants | Few entries, lacking detail | Substantially incomplete |
Problems and Unmet Needs (2.0) | 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 |
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 “Understand” part, continue with the specific activity that your representative user will perform.
Consider how the user will complete the activity:
Choose 2 different metaphors and design an interface for each of the metaphors that you choose. For both interfaces:
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following 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 (2.0) | 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 (2.0) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
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. Divide your group evenly into 2 sub-groups. Each sub-group will conduct 1 test with 1 of your 2 low-fidelity interface prototypes, so that you will have both of your low-fidelity prototypes tested. Use UR Courses to coordinate a sub-group of a diffent project group focusing on a different aspect of UR Courses. Each sub-group should run a test and be the subjects for the other’s test.
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. Your group will collect data from 1 test of your Interface A and 1 test of your Interface B. Both tests will use the same script and other materials.
Provide a commentary on your data. Did the data that you collected 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.
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following 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 |
Data and Notes from Test Sessions (2.0) | clear and complete | comprehensible | mostly complete | incomplete |
Explanation of and rationale for design choices made in the single refined interface design representation (4) | thoughtful and thorough | thorough | mostly complete | incomplete |
You are asked to compare your experience using Zoom breakout rooms for the midterm with your experience being onboarded for Proctortrack for the final exam.
To prepare to do this comparison and to take the final exam, follow the instructions for “Proctortrack Onboarding and Practice Exam” (at this link) and “Onboarding Quiz” (at this link). All students should complete this step for themselves and provide proof of their successful completion of onboarding for Proctortrack.
Specifically, you are asked to:
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Onboarding complete (2.0) | ||||
Questions (2.0) | Right questions asked | Missing one question | Lack relevance | No questions |
Suggested Improvements (2.0) | Thoughtful suggestions | Sufficient | Lacks relevance | Opportunities not identified |
Comparison with Zoom breakout rooms used for the midterm (2.0) |