Recent Question/Assignment

HOLMES
INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER
EDUCATION
UNDERGRADUATE
PROGRAM
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T2 2018
Unit Code HS2031
Unit Title Human Computer Interaction (HCI)
Assessment Type Individual Assignment
Assessment Title HCI in-depth evaluation for websites
Purpose of the assessment (with
ULO Mapping) Students will be able to:
a. Understand basic concepts and theories relating to Human-Computer
interaction (HCI) and user interfaces
b. Demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of user interface design, evaluation and technologies
c. Demonstrate skills in designing and evaluating interactive systems and web- based applications
Weight 15% of the total assessments
Total Marks 100% scaled to 15%
Word limit 1000-1500 words
Due Date Week 08
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard or IEEE referencing style.
Dr Mahmoud Bakkar , 2018

Assignment 1 Specification
The purpose of the report is to provide a critical evaluation of the nominated websites and to support your observations and recommendation convincingly. By performing an in-depth evaluation of the following websites:
Website 1: https://www.rebelsport.com.au
Website 2: https://www.nickscali.com.au/
Upon the completion of the task, you are to provide a formal report documenting your critical evaluation of the two websites. The report should draw particular attention to the interactive aspects and user interface design of the website. Support your critique with appropriate HCI design and evaluation principles as described in Chapter 1, 2, and 4 of your textbook (Shneiderman & Plaisant, 2010).
In your report you should:
1. Provide an overview and description of the nominated websites.
2. Identify and elaborate the main features of the websites, drawing on your first impression of the websites, accessibility, navigation, homepage, etc. (Refer to Powell,T 2002. Web Design: The Complete Reference, 2nd Ed, Chapter 5, http://webdesignref.com/chapters/ch05.htm)
3. Compare and contrast the two websites against the HCI design principles and usability principles.
4. Based on your critique and analysis in items (1) to (3) above, provide a recommendation on how the websites should be improved. Conversely, if further improvement is not required, then provide the reasons why that this is the case.
PLEASE NOTE:
Except for item (4) of the above, all assertions relating to user interface design principles (e.g. statements like ‘blue text on red background is a poor colour combination’) must be supported by references or critical observation. You can cite additional scholarly references other than the textbook. (Note: Do not use Wikipedia as a source of reference).
You can also snapshot the parts you evaluate from the site and show it in your report for more clarity evidence. And Figures Tables and or diagrams can be added as needed.
REPORT STRUCTURE:
1. Introduction – State the purpose and objectives of the report.
2. Discussion – Build your arguments into a cohesive thread, presenting your observations and findings that you have collated from section (1) to (3) from ‘What to Include’ section.
3. Recommendation – This is the section where you present your recommendations —Item (4) from the ‘What to include’ section.
4. Conclusion – Summarise your findings, consolidating and drawing attention to the main points of the report.
5. References. (a minimum of 4 references)
Marking criteria
Marking criteria Weighting
Presentation (Report structure, Layout, Grammar and spelling, Written style and expression) 10%
Referencing 10%
Relevance to HCI principles 30%
Quality of evaluation 30%
Recommendations and justification 20%
TOTAL Weight for this assignment marking: 100 (Total of 100 marks to be scaled to 15% of actual marks for this unit) 100%
Marking Rubrics
Grades Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Introduction /20 Demonstrated excellent ability to think
critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated very good ability to think critically but did not source reference material appropriately Demonstrate d good ability to think
critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated satisfactory ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately Did not
demonstrate
ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately
Discussion /40 Demonstrated excellent ability to think
critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated excellent ability to think critically but did not source reference material appropriately Demonstrate
d ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately Did not demonstrate
ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately
Recommendation /20 Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments Consistency logical and convincing Mostly consistent logical and convincing Adequate cohesion and conviction Argument is confused and disjointed
Conclusion /10 All elements are present and very well integrated. Components present with good cohesive Components present and mostly well integrated Most components present Proposal lacks structure.
Harvard or IEEE
Reference style /10 Clear styles with excellent source of references. Clear referencing style Generally good referencing style Sometimes
clear referencing style Lacks consistency with many errors