prototype 4

Guiding questions

Bare minimum

Satisfactory effort

Above & Beyond

TEAM PREPARATION: deciding appropriate heuristics (Max 10)

· The team developed a set of customised heuristics (5)

These were posted on time (1)

· The heuristics included: (3)

· key questions for the evaluator to consider (3)

· all students used the same heuristics (1)

(0 -4)

· Not clearly tied to any recognised heuristics.

· All team members using a different set of heuristics

· Heuristics not provided to evaluators

(5- 7)

· Clearly grounded in Nielsen's work.

· Some agreement of team members regarding heuristics

· Heuristics hard to use/interpret relative to the prototype

(8-10)

· Clearly grounded in Nielsen's or other recognised heuristics and in a format that is easily applied

· All team members used the same set of heuristics

· Heuristics chosen were relevant to prototype

INDIVIDUAL Heuristic Evaluation feedback

1. FACILITATION Skills (Max 15)

· Video 1: working paper prototype was provided (8)

· Video 2: your facilitation skills (7)

(0 -7)

No or partial evidence provided of facilitation process

(8 -11)

Evidence provided showing an understanding of the process and a useful working prototype

(12-15)

Evidence demonstrates a mastery of the process with a clear demonstration of the system prototyped.

2. HE Report: Evaluation and feedback (Max 35)

· A summary of results (including raw data) was provided to the client. (5)

· The results addressed the heuristics provided by client (5)

· A reasonable quantity of feedback was provided. (5)

· Overall feedback was insightful and reflective: problems clearly identified. (5)

· Feedback included a star diagram (radar chart) and was provided in such a way that it could be immediately helpful to the other team. (10)

· Severity ratings were included and used appropriately (5)

(0 -16)

· Too little feedback to be useful;

· Required heuristics were not addressed or only addressed marginally

· Vague or obvious feedback.

· Few helpful suggestions made

· Ratings not used

(17 -29)

· Good amount of feedback;

· Most of the required heuristics were addressed

· Useful, high quality feedback.

· Practical suggestions provided

· Ratings were used but there were some issues with the application

(30 -35)

· Clear, thoughtful and extensive feedback provided

· Required heuristics were addressed

· Insightful, widely varied feedback.

· Very helpful suggestions

· Rating concepts understood and used appropriately

3. Partner Rating (Max 10)

· How professional was the HE Facilitation process?

· How useful did your partner find the quality of HE feedback?

(0 -4)

(5- 7)

(8-10)

4. Reflections on the review process (Max 10)

· Reflections were included? 2-3 paras (2)

· Reflections showed insights on the use of the process (8)

(0 -4)

No

(5- 7)

Sort of – some reflections included

(8-10)

Yes showed some thought had been given to the overall approach and clearly answered all qns posed

5. Application of the HE process (Max 10)

· Did you perform a thorough heuristic evaluation based on the readings?

· Were ethical practices used?

(0 - 4)

No evidence in videos or write-up that the Nielsen readings had been consulted.

(5 -7)

Some evidence that the process was informed by the Nielsen readings

(8-10)

Clear evidence that the whole process had been grounded in the literature provided

6. Originality (Max 10) (radar chart (3)