Review of websites and make report

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM

Prepared by: Dr Mahmoud Bakkar August, 2018

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

x All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.

x 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.

x 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.

2019

HS2031 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Assignment 1 Page 2 of 4

Prepared by: Dr Mahmoud Bakkar August, 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.

h&ps://www.bcf.com.au/

h&ps://www.decibullz.com/

text book.

HS2031 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Assignment 1 Page 3 of 4

Prepared by: Dr Mahmoud Bakkar August, 2018

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%

HS2031 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Assignment 1 Page 4 of 4

Prepared by: Dr Mahmoud Bakkar August, 2018

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