Coursework Assessment Brief
|Unit Title:||HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION|
|Assessment Title:||Steady Pay check Agency|
|Restrictions on Time/Word Count:||2000|
|Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit:||There is no penalty for submitting below the word/count limit, but students should be aware that there is a risk they may not maximise their potential mark. Assignments should be presented appropriately in line with the restrictions stated above; if an assignment exceeds the time/word count this will be taken into account in the marks given using the assessment criteria shown.|
|Hand In Date:|
|Planned Feedback Date:||20 working days|
|Mode of Submission:||on-line via Solent Online Learning|
|Number of copies to be submitted:||No hard copy required|
|Anonymous Marking||This assessment will be marked anonymously|
DESIGN BRIEF AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Steady Paycheck (SP) is a recruitment agency which acts as an intermediary between employers and job seekers, individuals who are looking for jobs. Steady Paycheck is a new agency in Southern England; with a specific business model to work particularly with graduates from computing backgrounds, that includes Comp, ICT, BIS, BIT, SEng, Networking and WD. SP main function is to find employers and match them to the suitable candidates. As they are new, SP still in the feasibility study phase, they don’t have a system to help computerise the process of matching jobs to job seekers. SP Ltd has employed you to help analyse requirements of the user interface, evaluate, design and develop part of their system (a prototype).
Your job is to design an interface to the system that SP will be using to achieve their short and long term
goals. See additional Information Sheet.
The project will be broken into three distinct parts, which are explained below.
PART 1 (User and Business Needs Analysis) – 1000 Words
User needs are requirements that add value to a product, service or environment for a user. Capturing user needs is a process of engaging users to understand their problems, processes, goals and preferences.
You should produce a (User / Business) Need Analysis Document, which will contain all relevant details to enable the production of prototype. The section must contain all of the appropriate elements that are required to communicate your design intentions, and the rationale for the design choices made.
Before you begin, you need to familiarise yourself with online recruitment agencies, how do they work? Their main functions, business models, marketing strategies and user class, profile and categories need to be reviewed. You can visit some online recruitment agencies including:
You should include the following elements:
- An introduction about the system and highlights about the main functions are required in this report.
Introduction should rationalise the choice of why you decided to design with a UCD (User Centred Design) approach or TCD (Task Centre Design), it is imperative to vividly define your user group, define their task and goals, experience levels, what functions they expect from the system, what information they need from the system, and understand how users think the system should work.
This should also include the Comparative table based on design principles, Gestalt Principles and Time to Complete [ Job seeker and Employer User Journey].
- User Analysis (Aims primarily at identifying the main user goals.)
- Build 2 personas of a typical user (Job seeker)
- Build 2 personas of a typical user (Employer)
- Task Analysis (Aims primarily at identifying the main system tasks).
- Identify and explain three of the main user tasks and map them out to user goals (Job seeker)
- Identify and explain three of the main user tasks and map them out to user goals (Employer)
- Construct these tasks and illustrate them using one HTA Hierarchal Task Analysis chart for a Job Seeker and another HTA for Employer.
PART 2 (Interface Design and Development) – Prototype
Part 2 will be the production of a semi-working prototype. You are required to produce the prototype interface using an appropriate prototyping tool, online prototyping tools will be used or a web design tool. You should build & implement the result of your user requirements analysis, evaluation and design in part 1.
Plan & verify the usability of your design with a visual communication tool (storyboards). Construct a set of storyboards to define the elements of your design. Defend the rationale for your design choices with accompanying text which accompanies your storyboards. Particular attention should be paid to good use of icon metaphors and affordance.
A set of storyboards
Interaction with the Complete System (Company main interface)
It is required that the system should have at least a standard logging on security system with a user name and password. The authentication screen must be visually appealing and comply with logo and colour specifications. A Welcome to Main Menu interface should be the main interface that users first interact with and should link to the other four interfaces. It should have clear, well considered icon metaphors to access these other forms and will have a company logo and a suitable company icon metaphor positioned properly. This and all other interfaces/screens MUST have the company icon metaphor integrated in a consistent position and will also use suitable icon metaphors throughout which clearly suggest the affordance of screen objects to users. All interfaces must have your contracting team’s name at bottom right or in a Help, about menu. Drop down and/or popup menus can also be integrated into your system. The company require a consistent hue for all backgrounds with saturation in the low zone. Foreground text & objects such as buttons should suitably complement the background hue with strong consistent contrast. Command buttons and other objects should harmonize with this throughout your interfaces.
Create your own Icons, don’t copy anything from Google
Don’t copy anything from the internet or other groups as this will be documented as academic misconduct
Interaction with Search Job screen
Job search screen should allow job seekers to search for jobs based on some criteria such as skill, salary and location, as should be clearly identified in Part 1 analysis. Your design should consider all interactive features required by the end users, for instances, job title in the proposed search job screen should use combo box with some suggestions to aid the user through the process of searching, as well as to make the interface far more intuitive and learnable. Five possible values need to be added to the set of default values of the drop-down menu, additional justified rationales of the colour, size and shape should be clearly indicated.
Interaction with Sign up screen / Job Seekers / Employers
Registration screens should be provided in order to input potential job seekers and employers’ data into the data model. You must pay attention to the design rules when designing forms, including the use of visual elements, ease of use, grouping and gestalt principles.
Interaction with CV / Profile screen
Profile screen allows users to build up their selling points by adding experiences, qualifications and interests, hence that these variables need to be accounted carefully as they will be used later to match job descriptions. You may need to investigate ways on how to build the best CV, and find out more about what employers are looking for in the best suitable candidate.
Interaction with Job Description screen
Job description screen allows users to post job descriptions based on criteria IT employers are looking for. Whatever variables your team considered in the profile screen need to be implemented in the Job description screen, you still can provide detailed information about the job and other related job descriptions.
PART 3 (Testing and Integration) – 1000 words
Part three will be to test the final product, collect feedback and reflect on the interface towards more progressive design. As GUI testing techniques vary in terms of scale and scope, you need to select the best testing approach in order to determine how the application and the user interact and whether the application performs properly. Testing typically includes how the application handles keyboard and mouse input and how it displays screen text, images, buttons, menus, dialog boxes, icons and toolbars. Functional testing is commonly done by human testers, but is made a lot easier and more reliable by automated testing tools. Your prototype will probably only be intended to test a portion of the design. The report documentation should identify the following with regard to the prototypes:
In order to test your proof of concept (Prototype), you need to get 5 participants to fill in the following table individually.
|No.||Criteria||Description||[(Very Poor) 1 – 10 (Perfect)] Scale|
|1||Interfaces||Search, sign up (Jobseekers & Employers), Sign in or Login In, CV or|
Profile and Job Description.
|2||Regional Structure||Layout should be clearly identified according to HCI theories|
(Modern or Classic).
|3||Colour scheme||Colours should be carefully selected and consistently applied|
throughout the system interface.
|4||ICON Design||You should consider icon designs guidelines in terms of audience,|
size, simplicity, lighting, perspective, style and metaphorical context.
|5||Data Model||Dummy data for demonstration purposes. Data set includes at least|
login details for either JS or EM, Job search key words (2 or 3) 5 Records.
|6||Visibility of system status||The system should always keep users informed about what is going|
on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
|7||Aesthetic and minimalist design||Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes|
their relative visibility.
|8||Content||Contents are relevant and displayed according to HCI theories|
|9||Usability||System is easy to use and Minimize the user’s memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to|
|10||User Experience||Overall experience with system|
Once you recruit 5 participants to interact with your prototype and fill in your testing table, you need to calculate the Metacritic for each metrics in the following table:
|No.||Criteria||Metacritic = AVG. of score|
|1||Interfaces||AVG of 5 Answers|
|2||Regional Structure||AVG of 5 Answers|
|3||Colour scheme||AVG of 5 Answers|
|4||ICON Design||AVG of 5 Answers|
|5||Data Model||AVG of 5 Answers|
|6||Visibility of system status||AVG of 5 Answers|
|7||Aesthetic and minimalist design||AVG of 5 Answers|
|8||Content||AVG of 5 Answers|
|9||Usability||AVG of 5 Answers|
|10||User Experience||AVG of 5 Answers|
Overall Metacritic =
Human Digital Interaction Design
|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 HDID||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 HDID 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 HDID 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|
|Implementation of Design and Evaluation (ref L.O. K1,C1)|
|Able to produce a usable and||Can implement a design||Can implement an HDID||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 HDID||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,|
|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 HDID issues.||elements within the HDID||Identification &|
|defined HDID issues and to||defined HDID 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.|
|Knowledge and Understanding & Contribution to group (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 HDID||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 HDID. 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|
|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|
This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the Module descriptors.
Students are reminded that:
- If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;
- If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;
- If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.
The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not ‘fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer). In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence. If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested. Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact the Student Hub for advice.
Please find a link to the EC policy below:
Any submission must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. Students should check this link before submitting their work.
Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:
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 University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.
Guidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)
Get expert help for QHO542 HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!