HS2031 Unit Title Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Assessment

Assessment Details and Inferiority Guidelines
Trimester T1 2020
Individual Code HS2031
Individual Title Human Computer Interaction (HCI)
Assessment
Type
Collection Enactment
Assessment
Title
HCI – Correctionr Interface Pur-pose
Point of the
assessment
(with ULO
Mapping)
Students earn be cogent to:
c. Conduct skills in subtle and evaluating interactive prescribes and webgrounded applications
d. Apply recognition of presumptive cunningtations of HCI to trained situations
Weight 20% of the aggregate assessments
Aggregate Referablees 100% scaled to 20%
Word condition 2000-2500 signification
Attributable Seniority Week 11
Submission
Guidelines
• Complete operation must be suggestted on Blackboard by the attributable seniority concurrently with a completed
Enactment Cover Page.
• The enactment must be in MS Word coercionmat, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font
and 2 cm margins on complete filthy sides of your pseniority with misapply exception headings.
• Intimation sources must be cited in the quotation of the communication, and registered misapplyly at
the object in a intimation register using Harvard referencing mode.
HS2031 Human Computer Interaction Collection Enactment Pseniority 2 of 5
Collection Enactment Instruction
The point of the communication is to arrange an evaluation intent coercion the Commonwealth Bank of Australia
(abbreviated CBA or CommBank). In this collection enactment (apex 5 students) you are required
to profit a non-functioning prototype, usforce decomposition and heuristic evaluation intent coercion this
organisation, in the coercionmat of a communication (2000-2500 signification) munimenting your pur-pose rationale.
Complete constituents must conduce resembling to the enactment and the walkthrough. Non-attendance at the
walkthrough earn averseniority a referablee of ZERO is awarded to the collection constituent.
The enactments earn be referableeed 0 (Zero) if students do referable flourish these
requirements:
– Collection deficiencys to suggest the “Collection Coercionm” concurrently with their inferiority.
– Collection Blog: Complete the argument encircling collection enactment deficiencys to be recitative by using Collection Blog hireling
(Instruction in inferior, gladden instruct your lecturer). The argument must bearing to the gratified of the
enactment and reflects the conclusion of the collection consultation.
– Complete enactments must be suggestted electronically ONLY, uploaded to Blackboard and Inferiority of
SafeAssign. Inferiority deadlines are strictly enforced and a deceased inferiority incurs penalties.
– DO NOT SHARE YOUR ASSIGNMENT WITH OTHER STUDENTS inferior no circumstances
even succeeding the deadline and succeeding you suggestted it in the Blackboard. If there earn be any similarity
detected by SafeAssign or the referableeer, it is an academic mislead event and BOTH of the collections earn
get ZERO and earn be communicationed to the Dean academic.
Collection Blog:
– Complete the collection constituents can examine encircling the enactment by using Collection Blog. Once you are completeocated
in a collection, you can descry this part.
– Collection > Collection Hirelings > Collection Blog > Create Blog Entry
HOW TO DO THE ASSIGNMENT:
CBA is an Australian multinational bank with callinges abutting New Zealand, Asia, the Individualed States
and the Individualed Kingdom. It arranges a diversity of financial services including vend, calling and
institutional banking, funds treatment, superannuation, protection, bombardment and broking services.
As an HCI speciaregister team you bear been requested to propound the correctionr interface pur-pose modifications
coercion the CBA website and/or inconstant app.
HS2031 Human Computer Interaction Collection Enactment Pseniority 3 of 5
REPORT STRUCTURE:
In your communication gladden flourish the inferior structure:
1. Introduction – State the point and objectives of the communication.
1. Argument – Build your arguments into a gelatinous course, giveing your observations and
findings that you bear collated from exception (1) to (6) from ‘WHAT TO INCLUDE’ exception.
2. Recommendation – This is the exception where you give your recommendations. You should
cover exception (7) from ‘WHAT TO INCLUDE’ exception
3. Conclusion – Summarise your findings, consolidating and intent observation to the ocean points
of the communication.
4. Intimations. (a incompleteness of 10 intimations)
WHAT TO INCLUDE:
1. Correctionr Decomposition: You must bear a lucid purpose of the correctionrs of this prescribe. Consider that referable
everyone is comfortcogent with the technology. Coercion pattern, you deficiency to trade with correctionr variation
such as seniority or languseniority skills.
2. Undertaking Decomposition: to confirm the undertakings the immanent correctionrs earn act, and in what prescribe.
3. Heuristic Evaluation: Consoliseniority your findings from your correctionr and undertaking decomposition and
propound a pur-pose and intentate prescribe requirements to realise the recommended interface. Coercion
example, the reckon of items to exhibit, the shelter magnitude, what colours, how multifarious different
screens to exhibit, the devices to you, the substantial pur-pose.
4. Low-Attachment Prototype: Enlarge a low-attachment (paper) prototype (a incompleteness of 4
screens). Grounded on the aloft requirements, enlarge a previous pur-pose of the correctionr interface.
At this step, the prototype is basically a moderation to livelihood your primal concept and ideas. Coercion
example, the prototype should semblance where the bearing pin locations, how considerable information
would be giveed on each shelter expectation. Low- attachment prototyping is oceanly to completeow pur-poseers
to profit choice pur-poses expediently extraneously having to go into profoundness or partality.
Think of low-attachment prototyping as the 5D hireling coercion: pur-pose, draw, determine, disregard and do-over.
5. Feedback and Scan: Act an cessation evaluation of your pur-pose by creating a method
of feedback and examination 3-4 immanent correctionrs (e.g. friends, nobility constituents, classmates, expectation.) to
complete the feedback coercion your low-attachment brochure prototype. Carry quenched the evaluation according
to prescribed methods cunningt in the quotationbook (Shneiderman & Plaisant, 2017) or from other
scholarly sources.
HS2031 Human Computer Interaction Collection Enactment Pseniority 4 of 5
Correction misapply scan techniques. Analyse the axioms you bear unmoved from the correctionr
evaluation and referablee down any recommendations as to how you could make-glossy and better on
your primal pur-pose.
6. High-Attachment Prototype: Grounded on the correctionr touchstone feedback and recommendations enlarge
a high-attachment prototype. The high- attachment prototype should be an online mock-up of your
proposal and should conduct some navigation, although it does referable deficiency to operation as a
complete interface. A incompleteness of 4 shelters should be profitd in answerableness to your
storyboard. The high-attachment prototype must be computer grounded and any software is acceptable
including PowerPoint, storyboarding, expectation.
7. Evaluation Intent: Create an evaluation intent with recommendations on the hirelings and
methods you intobject to correction to evaluate the usforce of your interface.
Upon the amount of the undertaking, you are to required arrange a coercionmal communication to muniment the undertakings and
the conclusion of your efforts inferiortaken coercion the plan. Remember, this communication is hinted coercion your
employers and as such be professionally coercionmatted and giveed. Your communication earn livelihood the viability
of your interface and as such deficiencys to enlighten your master that your interface pur-pose is satisfactory
and that it meets correctionr apology touchstone.
Marking Criteria Weighting
Decomposition – Correctionr Decomposition and Undertaking Decomposition 15%
Pur-pose – Interface Pur-pose demonstration 15%
Prototype – Low-attachment Prototype and High-attachment 15%
Evaluation – Cessation Evaluation and Propoundd Evaluation Intent coercion the final
implementation
20%
Communication – Professionally coercionmatted muniment including misapply exceptions,
references, and bibliography
20%
Walkthrough – Professionally organised, amiable timing, hurl and giveation mode,
misapply gratified
15%
TOTAL Weight coercion this enactment referableeing: 100 (Aggregate of
100 referablees to be scaled to 20% of objective referablees coercion this individual)
100%
HS2031 Human Computer Interaction Collection Enactment Pseniority 5 of 5
Marking Rubrics
Grades Excellent Very Amiable Amiable Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Introduction /20 Conductd
excellent
force to think
critically and
sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
very amiable
force to think
critically but
did referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrate
d amiable force
to think
critically and
sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
satisfactory
force to think
critically and
did referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Did referable
demonstrate
force to think
critically and did
referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Discussion
/40
Demonstrated
excellent
force to think
critically and
sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
excellent
force to think
critically but
did referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrate
d force to
think critically
and sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
force to think
critically and
did referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Did referable
demonstrate
force to think
critically and did
referable source
reference
material
appropriately
Recommendation
/20
Logic is lucid
and not-difficult to
flourish with
strong
arguments
Consistency
logical and
convincing
Mostly
consistent
logical and
convincing
Adequate
cohesion and
conviction
Argument
is
confused
and
disjointed
Conclusion /10 Complete elements
are give
and very well
integrated.
Components
give with
good
cohesive
Components
give and
mostly well
integrated
Most
components
present
Proposal lacks
structure.
Harvard or IEEE
Intimation mode
/10
Lucid modes
with excellent
source of
references.
Clear
referencing
style
Generally
good
referencing
style
Sometimes
clear
referencing
style
Lacks
consistency with
multifarious errors