CS 428+828 in Fall 2019

Schedule

Links

• Syllabus (pdf)
• UR Courses

Topics

HCI / Foundations

HCI / Designing Interaction

HCI / Programming Interactive Systems

HCI / User-Centered Design and Testing

HCI / New Interactive Technologies

HCI / Collaboration and Communication

HCI / Statistical Methods for HCI

HCI / Design-Oriented HCI

Assignments

Project Proposal ()

• Marks: 3
• Due Date: 01-Oct-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Description

The project can be done individually or in a small group (of up to 4). If you choose to work in a group, list all the group members on the proposal near the top (so that you can be put into a project group together) – only 1 copy of the proposal needs to be submitted. If your project changes after the proposal is submitted, please keep me informed (the goal of the proposal is for you to plan so that changes won’t be necessary).

You may choose what you will do for the project and that will depend on whether you are working individually or in a group. It must deal with class themes in some way, and I am open to your ideas about how you will do it. Some possibilities include:

• Research Paper
• Book Review

Start with a careful and critical reading of your chosen book. Describe, analyze, and evaluate your book as well as provide evidence to support your conclusions. Identify the key arguments of the book and how well the author supports them. Some questions to consider:

• How and what does this work help us to understand about an issue?
• What types of evidence does the author draw on to support their argument?
• Does the book do what the author claims that it will do?
• Are there other types of evidence that the author fails to acknowledge or ignores?
• Is there a theoretical perspective from which the author writes?
• How is this book similar to or different from other books on the topic? Why are they similar or different?
• Are you convinced by the book? Why or why not?

An appropriate structure will include an introduction that provides: identification of the book, author, and any essential historical background needed for context; and a clear and concise evaluation of the book that includes its main argument and its strengths and weaknesses. After the introduction, provide a brief summary or overview of the book. Identify the essential arguments of the book and briefly summarize them. Next will come the evaluation and analysis that contains the bulk of your review where you explain and develop the evaluation made in the introduction. Provide evidence. Finally, conclude with a concise summation of your review.

• Wikipedia article (create new or add to existing)
• Create and promote some online content (video [which could be a recording of a presentation with narration], podcast, blog)
• Picture Yourself as a Computing Professional

Identify and discuss role models for your life as a computing professional. Choose 3 computing professional role models (from the present or past) and write about each one. Include a picture of each, if possible. Reflect on how they inspire you with respect to the Codes of Ethics (including https://ethics.acm.org/) that we are examining in class.

• Discuss your contributions to an open source project (on github, for example)
• Write some code to test an idea

Contents and Format of the Proposal

To match the rubric below, use the following headings.

Topic

Describe your topic and how it relates to class. The list of topics and learning outcomes for this semester may be of help. Choose a topic that is new to you (that you haven’t done in your blog entry). If the general topic is similar, please indicate how you will treat it differently, such as from a different perspective.

Deliverable and Rationale

Choose the form in which you will deliver your project. Explain why you are choosing that particular deliverable and explain why it is appropriate for a group or an individual to realize it.

Tentative Plan

Provide a plan, with some milestones, for realizing your chosen deliverable. This plan may look like an outline of what you expect to include. If you are doing this with a group, make clear how each group member will participate in the final deliverable.

Submission

• submit a well-formatted pdf document on UR Courses
• target length: 1-2 pages

Grading

This assignment is worth 5 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Topic (1) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary: Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary (-): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (+): Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient: Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (-): Topic engages an important issue related to class Developing (+): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing: Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing (-): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Needs Improvement: Topic does not engage an important issue related to class

Deliverable and Rationale (2) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary: Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary (-): Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Sufficient (+): Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Sufficient: Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Sufficient (-): Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Developing (+): Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing: Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing (-): Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Needs Improvement: Intended deliverable is not appropriate. Rationale for approach is not clear

Tentative Plan (2) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Ambitious and thorough Exemplary: Ambitious and thorough Exemplary (-): Ambitious and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat thorough Developing: Somewhat thorough Developing (-): Somewhat thorough Needs Improvement: Not thorough

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Empathize ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 10-Oct-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Empathize

This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.

You have been made a TEACHER in a course on URcourses, so that you can gain a different perspective on URcourses (because you are normally a STUDENT).

For this assignment, please complete the task described below while reflecting on your experience with the interface.

Specifically, you are asked to:

1. Create an empathy map while you complete the following task within your course on URcourses:
   1. 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!)
   2. add to your section:
      1. One activity that allows you to assign a grade upon completion
      2. One resource whose access is restricted based on the grade earned from your activity (NOTE: this represents a change in the assignment, necessitated by the lack of capability to assign a grade or record activity completion in the current version of URcourses)
2. Describe whatever opportunities for redesign that you find by describing it (or them) in terms of your personal experience of completing the above task

Submission

• submit a single pdf document on URcourses
• target: 1 page for the empathy map and 1-2 pages for the opportunities for redesign

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Task Completed (2.0) criteria_I_EMP Choose... Exemplary (+): Everything done as requested Exemplary: Everything done as requested Exemplary (-): Everything done as requested Sufficient (+): Mostly done as requested Sufficient: Mostly done as requested Sufficient (-): Mostly done as requested Developing (+): Not done as requested Developing: Not done as requested Developing (-): Not done as requested Needs Improvement: Not completed

Empathy Map (2.0) criteria_I_EMP Choose... Exemplary (+): All quadrants done well Exemplary: All quadrants done well Exemplary (-): All quadrants done well Sufficient (+): Entries in all quadrants Sufficient: Entries in all quadrants Sufficient (-): Entries in all quadrants Developing (+): Few entries, lacking detail Developing: Few entries, lacking detail Developing (-): Few entries, lacking detail Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Opportunities for Redesign (2.0) criteria_I_EMP Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoroughly explored Exemplary: Thoroughly explored Exemplary (-): Thoroughly explored Sufficient (+): Complete Sufficient: Complete Sufficient (-): Complete Developing (+): Lacks detail Developing: Lacks detail Developing (-): Lacks detail Needs Improvement: Opportunities not identified

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Understand Your Project ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 15-Oct-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Understand

Understand the important issues in your redesign effort by identifying specific user issues with a feature or task that you have selected in your proposal.

Recall the diagram that illustrated the article about Design Thinking (from the Nielsen Norman Group):

There are 3 phases depicted: understand, explore, and materialize. The understand phase, comprising empathize and define steps, is the focus of this assignment. You should focus on well-defined activities that well-defined users are trying to perform.

1. describe: describe the activity/activities and the user(s) with sufficient detail to be relatable
2. empathize: each member of your group will do this by creating one or more empathy maps for the each activitie(s)y
3. define: identify specific aspects of the current interface that cause problems for the users and explore the roots of those problems. Identify whatever user needs may be unmet

Remember that this phase is still concerned with articulating the problem. No solutions should appear here. That will come later.

Submission

• submit a pdf document (1 per group) on URcourses that includes all three parts (describe, empathize, and define)
• target: 6 - 10 problems or unmet needs (about 2 per group member)

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Description of User(s) (0.75) criteria_P_UND Choose... Exemplary (+): Clear and compelling Exemplary: Clear and compelling Exemplary (-): Clear and compelling Sufficient (+): Concrete Sufficient: Concrete Sufficient (-): Concrete Developing (+): Lacks detail Developing: Lacks detail Developing (-): Lacks detail Needs Improvement: Substantially missing

Description of Task(s) (0.75) criteria_P_UND Choose... Exemplary (+): Clear and compelling Exemplary: Clear and compelling Exemplary (-): Clear and compelling Sufficient (+): Concrete Sufficient: Concrete Sufficient (-): Concrete Developing (+): Lacks detail Developing: Lacks detail Developing (-): Lacks detail Needs Improvement: Substantially missing

Empathy Map(s) (2.0) criteria_P_UND Choose... Exemplary (+): All quadrants done well by all Exemplary: All quadrants done well by all Exemplary (-): All quadrants done well by all Sufficient (+): Entries in all quadrants Sufficient: Entries in all quadrants Sufficient (-): Entries in all quadrants Developing (+): Few entries, lacking detail Developing: Few entries, lacking detail Developing (-): Few entries, lacking detail Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Problems and Unmet Needs (2.0) criteria_P_UND Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoroughly explored and documented (without indicating solutions) Exemplary: Thoroughly explored and documented (without indicating solutions) Exemplary (-): Thoroughly explored and documented (without indicating solutions) Sufficient (+): Quite complete Sufficient: Quite complete Sufficient (-): Quite complete Developing (+): Not enough requirements or detail Developing: Not enough requirements or detail Developing (-): Not enough requirements or detail Needs Improvement: Missing requirements and detail

Writing (0.5) criteria_P_UND Choose... Exemplary (+): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary: Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary (-): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Sufficient (+): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient: Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient (-): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Developing (+): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing: Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing (-): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Needs Improvement: Consistently uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and syntax that makes it difficult for others to follow

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Critique a Project ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 31-Oct-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Critique a Project

This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.

You have been placed into a “Critique” group, the members of which will receive the submission from a “Project” group (in a message posted here). In order to keep the projects on track, please complete your critique on time.

Review the submission sent to you and provide constructive feedback based on what was requested in the Understand Project assignment.

Share your observations, ideas, and questions that you have for the group. Please remember to be constructive, and specific.

Submission

• submit a pdf document
• target: 1 page for the review and 1-2 pages for the sharing

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Review (2.75) criteria_I_CU Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Sharing (2.75) criteria_I_CU Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Writing (0.5) criteria_I_CU Choose... Exemplary (+): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary: Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary (-): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Sufficient (+): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient: Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient (-): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Developing (+): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing: Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing (-): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Needs Improvement: Consistently uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and syntax that makes it difficult for others to follow

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Design ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 14-Nov-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Project Design

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 (and considering the feedback that you will receive from your critique group), state the task that the user will perform. If you had many tasks in the last project assignment, please focus at this stage on 1 substantial task that accomplishes a meaningful goal for the user

Then consider how the user will do the task:

• 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
• whether 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

Submission

• submit a pdf document (1 per group)

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Interface 1 Low-Fidelity Prototype (Sketch) (1.5) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): clear Exemplary: clear Exemplary (-): clear Sufficient (+): comprehensible Sufficient: comprehensible Sufficient (-): comprehensible Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Interface 1 Scenario (1.0) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): thorough Sufficient: thorough Sufficient (-): thorough Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Interface 1 Iteration Process Description (0.5) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): thorough Sufficient: thorough Sufficient (-): thorough Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Interface 2 Low-Fidelity Prototype (Sketch) (1.5) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): clear Exemplary: clear Exemplary (-): clear Sufficient (+): comprehensible Sufficient: comprehensible Sufficient (-): comprehensible Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Interface 2 Scenario (1.0) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): thorough Sufficient: thorough Sufficient (-): thorough Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Interface 2 Iteration Process Description (0.5) criteria_P_DES Choose... Exemplary (+): thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): thorough Sufficient: thorough Sufficient (-): thorough Developing (+): mostly complete Developing: mostly complete Developing (-): mostly complete Needs Improvement: incomplete

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Report as Test Subject ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 28-Nov-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Report as Test Subject

This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.

You have been placed into an “Eval” group. You are to coordinate, as has been discussed in class meetings, with the other members of your “Eval” group so that you will each conduct 1 test of your “A” interface and 1 test of your “B” interface (with 2 different people). In turn, you will be the test subject for 2 others from your “Eval” group. You are to complete this assignment from the perspective of test subject.

1. What did you notice or observe about your 2 experiences as test subject?:
   • Was there anything different between them?
   • Was anything especially easy or hard about shifting between running the tests of your interfaces and being a test subject for someone else?
2. Do you have any comments or constructive criticisms for your peers who ran the tests when you were the subject?

Submission

• submit a pdf document

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Observations from Both Experiences (2.75) criteria_I_RATS Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Comments and Constructive Criticisms (2.75) criteria_I_RATS Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Writing (0.5) criteria_I_RATS Choose... Exemplary (+): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary: Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary (-): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Sufficient (+): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient: Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient (-): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Developing (+): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing: Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing (-): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Needs Improvement: Consistently uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and syntax that makes it difficult for others to follow

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

You Choose (Undergrad) ()

• Marks: 12
• Due Date: 10-Dec-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

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

This assignment is worth 12 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Topic (2) criteria_I_U_YC Choose... Exemplary (+): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary: Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary (-): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (+): Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient: Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (-): Topic engages an important issue related to class Developing (+): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing: Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing (-): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Needs Improvement: Topic does not engage an important issue related to class

Content (6) criteria_I_U_YC Choose... Exemplary (+): Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively. Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary: Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively. Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary (-): Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively. Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Sufficient (+): Deliverable is used appropriately. Realization of approach is reasonable Sufficient: Deliverable is used appropriately. Realization of approach is reasonable Sufficient (-): Deliverable is used appropriately. Realization of approach is reasonable Developing (+): Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately. Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing: Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately. Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing (-): Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately. Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Needs Improvement: Deliverable is not used appropriately. Realization of approach is not clear

Presentation (4) criteria_I_U_YC Choose... Exemplary (+): Ambitious and thorough Exemplary: Ambitious and thorough Exemplary (-): Ambitious and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat thorough Developing: Somewhat thorough Developing (-): Somewhat thorough Needs Improvement: Not thorough

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Research Paper Review (Grad) ()

• Marks: 12
• Due Date: 10-Dec-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Research Paper Review (Grad)

This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment for graduate students.

Choose a recent (within the last 3 years) 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:

1. What is the purpose of the work?
2. How do the authors achieve their purpose?
3. Why did they adopt their particular approach?
4. Do you think their purpose has been achieved?
5. 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

This assignment is worth 12 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

What is the purpose of the work? (2.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

How do the authors achieve their purpose? (2.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Why did they adopt their particular approach? (2.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Do you think their purpose has been achieved? (2.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

What insights have you gained from reading this work? (2.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Why did you choose this paper? (1.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary: Thoughtful and thorough Exemplary (-): Thoughtful and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat complete Developing: Somewhat complete Developing (-): Somewhat complete Needs Improvement: Substantially incomplete

Writing (1.0) criteria_I_G_RPR Choose... Exemplary (+): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary: Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Exemplary (-): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience Sufficient (+): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient: Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Sufficient (-): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your work Developing (+): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing: Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Developing (-): Some errors, audience may have some trouble reading your work Needs Improvement: Consistently uses incorrect grammar, spelling, and syntax that makes it difficult for others to follow

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Evaluate Low-Fidelity Prototypes ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 26-Nov-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Evaluate

Based on your designs, test!

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 group will conduct 1 test with each of your group’s 2 low-fidelity interface prototypes. The tests will be arranged from within your evaluation (Eval) groups. Each Eval group has 3 members. Use URcourses to coordinate with your Eval group members. For illustrative purposes, consider a group with Bob, Fanhua, and Premla. Each of them will arrange 2 meetings:

• Bob and Fanhua arrange to meet:
  • Bob tests his group’s Interface A with Fanhua
  • Fanhua tests his group’s Interface B with Bob
• Bob and Premla arrange to meet:
  • Bob tests his group’s Interface B with Premla
  • Premla tests her group’s Interface A with Bob
• Fanhua and Premla arrange to meet:
  • Fanhua tests his group’s Interface A with Premla
  • Premla tests her group’s Interface B with Fanhua

IMPORTANT: Your Eval group should not have any other members from your 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 testing, 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. You will also have notes that you take during the test.

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. Both 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?

Submission

• submit a pdf document (1 per group)

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Script and Materials (2.0) criteria_P_LOFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Qualitative Data and Notes from Test Sessions (1.5) criteria_P_LOFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Quantitative Data (1.5) criteria_P_LOFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Analysis and Summary of Data (1.0) criteria_P_LOFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Video Presentation ()

• Marks: 3
• Due Date: 3-Dec-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Project Presentation

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 will incorporate what you have learned

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 URcourses

Grading

This assignment is worth 3 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Identify Project and Opportunity for Redesign (0.5) criteria_P_VID Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Discuss your 2 lo-fi designs (and metaphors) (1.0) criteria_P_VID Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Describe what you learned from your evaluations (1.0) criteria_P_VID Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Discuss how your hi-fi prototype will incorporate what you have learned (0.5) criteria_P_VID Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

High Fidelity ()

• Marks: 6
• Due Date: 10-Dec-2019 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

High Fidelity Finish

Recall the diagram that illustrated the article about Design Thinking from the Nielsen Norman Group. We are in the materialize phase.

Based on your experience with your project and your testing of your low-fidelity prototypes, create a single high-fidelity design of your interface that combines the best features from your two low-fidelity prototypes. This high-fidelity prototype should be somehow (using your choice of tool) executable on a computer and create an interactive simulation of your interface to perform only your task (and NOT all functionality). You are not writing code for the application per se, rather you are simulating the operation of the software or website for which you are redesigning the interface.

There are 2 parts to this assignment:

• present the choices you made, along with your rationale, in deciding on the interface you designed following your low-fidelity prototypes A and B.
• provide the means for the instructor and marker to view and interact with your high-fidelity prototype, or a demonstration of your simulation with a video as a fallback. Include directions for viewing your work in the document that describes your design choices.

Submission

• submit a pdf document (1 per group) on URcourses that deals with both parts of the assignment

Grading

This assignment is worth 6 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

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Explanation of and rationale for design choices made in the single hi-fi prototype (3) criteria_P_HIFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Demonstration of interactive simulation of hi-fi design simulation (3) criteria_P_HIFI Choose... Exemplary (+): Exemplary: Exemplary (-): Sufficient (+): Sufficient: Sufficient (-): Developing (+): Developing: Developing (-): Needs Improvement:

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late and before cut-off date

Assignment not submitted before cut-off date

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Exams

In 201930:

Previous exams

• 202230 Final
• 202030 Midterm
• 201830 Final
• 201830 Midterm
• 201730 Final
• 201730 Midterm
• 201630 Final
• 201630 Midterm

Feedback