Solent University
Coursework Assessment Submission
Module Name: UX Strategy
Module Code: COM621
Module Leader:
Assessment Submission Date:
Student Number:
UX Strategy
Contents
Part 1 – Introduction to System (1K words) 2
1.1 Current SUAA UX Design and Business Model 2
1.2 Academic and Market Research. 3
Add web link to (max 5 min) video of User Journey analysis. 3
3.1 Prototype – Add web link to prototype sample. 3
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations. 3
Learning Outcomes: Self-Assessment (LOs – mapped for each of the 3 sections. Evidence all 5 are addressed.) 10
Part 1 – Introduction to System (1K words)
1.0 Introduction
[ Add LO Number(s) for each section they are addressed ]
What is the context?
Who are the users?
What is the system?
What is the problem?
Why is it important?
Who should benefit from it?
What impact does technology have on that context?
What is the feature list comparison of existing systems?
1.1 Current SUAA UX Design and Business Model
[ Add ]
1.2 Academic and Market Research
[ Add ]
1.3 Analysis
[ Add ]
1.4 Summary
[ Add ]
2.0 Essay 2 (1K words)
2.1 User research
2.2 User Journey
2.3 Summary
Add web link to (max 5 min) video of User Journey analysis.
3.0 Essay 3 (1K words)
3.1 Prototype – Add web link to prototype sample.
3.2 Usability Testing
3.3 Summary
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.0 References
Harvard Style (Surname, 1st Initial. (Date), ‘Title’ – Publication / Web address <visit date> |
Assessment Appendix
Assessment Details
Module Title: | UX Strategies |
Module Code: | COM621 |
Module Leader: | |
Level: | 6 |
Assessment Title: | Solent Alumni Programme System |
Assessment Number: | AE1 |
Assessment Type: | Report + Prototype |
Restrictions on Time/Word Count: | 3000 words |
Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit: | It is essential that assignments keep within the time/word count limit stated above. Any work beyond the maximum time/word length permitted will be disregarded and not accounted for in the final grade. * |
Individual/Group: | Individual |
Assessment Weighting: | 100% |
Issue Date: | 30 Sept. 2021 |
Hand In Date: | 21/1/2022 |
Planned Feedback Date: | 04/02/2022 |
Mode of Submission: | on-line via SOL |
Number of copies to be submitted: | 1 Copy per student including all parts of assignment |
Anonymous Marking | This assessment is exempt from anonymous marking. |
Assessment Task
DESIGN BRIEF AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
This project aims to research and analyse the UX Strategy for the Solent University Alumni Association (SUAA). A project Gantt chart will be needed to produce a work plan for the 3 K word final report. Weekly progress will be shared in each class session and online. Students will do a case study analysis of the Solent University Alumni Association current website and related services / resources. The main university contacts are Mike Toy (SUAA manager) and Mark Humphrys (Marketing Manager). Please coordinate your communication with these staff members so we don’t send too many individual emails. Their support time is limited as our ‘clients’.
This is a summary of the overall assessment tasks:
1. A market research study will be done with at least 1 other university similar to SU.
1. Conduct a review of the Solent University mission, vision, value etc.
statements in light of corporate social responsibility to identify any gaps.
2. Critically compare this to at least 1 comparable UK university.
3. Critically compare this website to at least 1 other UK university alumni
website. NOTE: figures and tables can be put in the report appendix to save
on word count.
2. Review the SUAA website for UX strategy
including the services and resources offered.
3. The data collected and analysed will help inform some recommended changes to
the resources e.g. UX designs.
4. All ethical guidelines for research and NDA (non-disclosure agreements) or data
protection policies will be followed. e.g. consent forms for current Computing
students will be used to get primary data on the current website and resources,
compared to the student’s recommendations.
5. COM621 students will compile short interview questions for Mike and Mark as part of the business and website review process to submit as a group (not individuals).
6. Any surveys or interviews will done with current students (prospective alumni), not
with SO graduates due to data privacy regulations.
7. A 3K word summary report will be provided based on last year’s assessment to
provide consistency as detailed below.
NB: Recommendations will not be implemented. A summary presentation video will
be made from student submissions.
The project will be broken into four distinctive parts, which are explained below.
The project will be broken into four distinctive parts, which are explained below.
Part 1 – Introduction to System
Deliverable 1000 Words
Part 1 will be the assimilation of relevant information about the functionality of the system and requirements for the interface based on the type of user and frequency of use and clearly defined business goals. This section aims at what stockholders/shareholders want? An introduction should be provided to introduce your team idea, what solution it solves using context analysis or based on gain and pain model.
Introduction should provide answers to the following questions:
What is the context?
Who are the users?
What is the system?
What is the problem?
Why is it important?
Who should benefit from it?
What impact does technology have on that context?
What is the feature list comparison of existing systems?
Part 2 – User Research Analysis
Deliverable 1000 Words
In UX, it is important to understand who the users are and what are their needs. In order to do that you should utilise a variety of UX methods, minimum required:
- Contextual Interviews – Enable you to observe users in their natural environment, giving you a better understanding of the way users work.
- Surveys – A series of questions asked to multiple users of your idea.
You should produce a valid list of user groups (Demographics, Geographic, Psychographic and behavioural) attributes table. You must also produce a list of user needs in a form of a table.
Part 3 – User Journey
Deliverable Poster /Video
At this point, as per part 1 and part 2, you should have two essential UX outcomes available, User Research findings in a form user needs and objectives and a clearly defined business goal. In this section, you are required to produce a fully detailed user journey including all the following elements:
- User Persona (Minimum 2 persona representing two typical user groups)
- User Scenario (Minimum 2)
- User Goals
- Flow of Tasks/Information/Screens/IXDs/Contents/Information Architecture
- Empathy Mapping
- Usability Metrics
Part 4 – Prototype
Deliverable prototype
Part 4 will be the production of a prototype. You are required to produce the prototype interface using an appropriate prototyping tool. Each team member is responsible for ensuring that their design area is prototyped. Populate your interface prototype with example data sufficient to demonstrate the prototypes functionality.
You will be required to demonstrate your software prototype in your normal Tutorial, times to be advised during class by the unit tutor. Please make sure that your prototype is accessible online. Make sure that when you chose the prototyping tool to consider whether it could be exported and extracted for SOL submission. Alternatively, a web link of the prototype needs to be valid for at least 90 days.
Part 5 – Usability Testing
Deliverable 1000 Words
Part five will be the usability testing. As part of your interface implementation process, you will have to test your interface. Your will be responsible for what UX or Usability testing you carrying out, and accordingly, design the test and have it approved by your tutor. You should recruit participants to test the project, with predefined demographical criteria, you will be responsible to bring them to the lab and test your interface. Data analysis of this part should inform the final design, and this should be documented in 1000 words report supported with heat maps and gaze plots.
Usability testing metrics:
- Layout: Inability to detect something users need to find; Aesthetic problems; Unnecessary Information.
- Terminology: Unable to understand the terminology.
- Feedback: User does not receive relevant feedback or it is inconsistent with what the user expects.
- Comprehension: Inability to understand the instructions given to users on the site.
- Data Entry: Problems with entering information.
- Navigation: Problems with finding users way around the test site/system/software.
Assessment criteria
A | B | C | D | F | ||
Analysis of User experience requirements, usability planning & design (ref L.O. K1,C1,P1) | ||||||
Able to critically analyse UX | Identification, | |||||
problem and conduct a thorough | Good understanding of UX | Able to recognise a UX | Can identify some key | analysis, planning of | ||
analysis, plan & design of a | analysis techniques and | research issues and apply a | elements of the HCI | a poor standard | ||
development problem, select | methodologies evidenced | series of steps | problem and plan a set of | which does not meet | ||
effectively between different | by set of UX analytical | in providing a solution to a | actions to achieve that task | or address problem | ||
alternatives and provide | artefacts. Able to apply a | usability & interaction | based upon a given method. | area. Does not reach | ||
justification in the context of | suitable, | development problem. | Although sufficient has flaws | required threshold. | ||
problem and in the light of | logical series of steps | However, analysis or | in elements and/or actions, | Doesn’t include UX | ||
existing HCI theory. | effectively and | design may be weak in | and/or method. Analysis has | artefact. | ||
To include: User analysis, task | consistently in providing | parts or use of the | the minimum required | |||
analysis, screen | a solution to a usability | methodology inconsistent. | elements that exceed the | |||
designs, windows hierarchy | & interaction/software | To include: User analysis, | threshold. | |||
diagrams etc. More | development problem. To | task analysis, screen | ||||
complete designs will include | include: User analysis, task | designs, windows hierarchy | ||||
establishment of | analysis, screen | diagrams. | ||||
usability requirements for | designs, windows hierarchy | |||||
subsequent evaluation. | diagrams. | |||||
Implementation of Design and Evaluation (ref L.O. K1,C1) | ||||||
Able to produce a usable and | Can implement a design | Can implement an HCI | Can apply visual | Does not reach | ||
robust interface with fully | spec. in full, within a | problem solution from a | environment design tools | required threshold. | ||
functional components from a | visual environment | design specification | and techniques in solving a | Implementation & | ||
given specification fully | well-informed by | informed by evaluation. | structured and/or user | evaluation | ||
informed by evaluation. | evaluation while | The specification may not | related problem informed by | inadequate. | ||
Demonstrates exceptional skill | respecting good | be implemented in full | evaluation. However, the | |||
in the use of the visual | professional HCI | and/or the system may not | solution may be partial or | |||
development environment. | principles and practice. | be sufficiently robust. | may employ only a subset of | |||
Comprehensive and thorough | Some robust usability | Some evaluation / testing | the appropriate techniques. | |||
evaluation and usability testing. | evaluation / testing. | will have been carried out. | Evaluation superficial, | |||
marginal testing. | ||||||
Identification and appraisal of key areas of work (ref L.O. C1,P1) | ||||||
Able to define and conduct a | Able to define and | Able to define and reflect | Able to describe and partly | Does not reach | ||
rigorous critique of key areas in | reflect upon key areas in | on key areas in the context | reflect on some key | required threshold. | ||
the context of very clearly | the context of well- | of recognized HCI issues. | elements within the HCI | Identification & | ||
defined HCI issues and to | defined HCI issues and | Some solid critical | area. Definition and critical | appraisal of a poor | ||
evaluate the solution and the | provide a critical | evaluation against original | evaluation is superficial. | standard which fails | ||
solution strategy with reference | assessment of actions | requirements though this | to reach required | |||
to existing theory. Able to | taken. Able to identify | could be extended. | threshold. | |||
assess the implications of | alternative solution | |||||
adopting alternative solution | strategies. | |||||
strategies | ||||||
Knowledge and Understanding & Contribution (ref L.O. C1,T1) | ||||||
Demonstrates a detailed | Comprehensive overall | Demonstrates familiarity | Satisfactory understanding | Does not reach | ||
recognition and knowledge of | understanding of issues | with issues and practice in | and identification of HCI | required threshold. | ||
theory & practice in the context | & practice in the context | the context of human- | issues, design capabilities , | Inaccuracies / | ||
of human digital interaction and | of human digital | digital interaction with a | evaluation issues and | omissions in areas of | ||
an in-depth identification and | interaction with a | software model. | functionally of the interface | theory & practice may | ||
understanding of concepts. | software model. Has | Reasonable familiarity with | and software model but | be substantial with | ||
Has the ability to synthesize | read around the subject | recommended reading. | lacking in depth and | irrelevancies. | ||
and apply information in the | and is able to integrate | Some gaps in significant | breadth. Minor contribution | Struggles or fails to | ||
solution of a problem in | and organise | areas. Contribution to | to group. Poor written | engage with | ||
conjunction with team. Makes a | information. Has clearly | group is acceptably | reflection on work | concepts, issues | ||
full well managed & positive | worked with the team | managed with some gaps | contributed to group with | within HCI. Very | ||
contribution to work produced | and made a significant | in depth and breadth. | little or no example | little or no reflection | ||
by group. Is able to reflect fully | contribution to | Written reflection of | artefacts, poor referencing. | on contribution with | ||
on how contribution is made | group/team work. Able | contribution is constructed | no example artefacts. | |||
with fully referenced clear | to reflect on how | clearly with some gaps and | ||||
example artefacts. | contribution is made with | few example artefacts | ||||
referenced examples. | which may not be clearly | |||||
referenced. | ||||||
Presentation & planning (ref L.O. C1,P1,T1) | ||||||
Comprehensive, detailed, | Provides a coherent | Provides a coherent style | Meets the basic guidelines | Does not reach | ||
coherent, & consistent | clear well planned | and structure for the | for a given presentation and | required threshold. | ||
throughout with no errors of | whole. Consistent in | subject in hand with some | presentational style. | Aspects substantially | ||
rationale reasoning or fact, | rationale, reasoning, | structural and information | Evidence of planning. | unclear, incoherent or | ||
Very well planned. | Planning. | defects. Well planned. | missing |
Learning Outcomes: Self-Assessment
(LOs – mapped for each of the 3 sections. Evidence all 5 are addressed.)
What you will be able to do after the module: Use the key words of the LOs.
Module Learning Outcome | Evidence (pg #) Notes | Personal Learning Outcome |
1. Implement problem solving techniques into designing features and functionalities to produce industry level products. | ||
2. Compare User Experience principles to accommodate different forms of interaction across multiple touchpoints (physical and/or digital), and to formulate and apply these principles in complex contexts. | ||
3. Analyze proposed UX design solutions using a range of methodologies and techniques against goals, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs). | ||
4. Critically evaluate and validate solutions against goals, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) with a view to continuous improvement of the digital product or service. | ||
5. Apply accessibility principles to digital product design. |
Ethics Policy
The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.
- The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:
- The British Education Research Association (BERA) research guidelines are useful for your surveys and interviews.
- For commercial research, you may want to use a free online NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) such as: I have read and applied the appropriate ethics guidelines for this assessment.
Get expert help for COM621 UX Strategy and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!