IT 352 SEU Human Computer Interaction Questions and Presentation
IT 352 SEU Human Computer Interaction Questions and Presentation
College of Computing and Informatics Project Report Deadline: Tuesday 08/11/2022 @ 23:59 [Total Mark for Project is 14] Student Details: CRN: Name: Name: Name: ID: ID: ID: Instructions: • You must submit two separate copies (one Word file and one PDF file) using the Assignment Template on Blackboard via the allocated folder. These files must not be in compressed format. • It is your responsibility to check and make sure that you have uploaded both the correct files. • Zero mark will be given if you try to bypass the SafeAssign (e.g. misspell words, remove spaces between words, hide characters, use different character sets, convert text into image or languages other than English or any kind of manipulation). • Email submission will not be accepted. • You are advised to make your work clear and well-presented. This includes filling your information on the cover page. • You must use this template, failing which will result in zero mark. • You MUST show all your work, and text must not be converted into an image, unless specified otherwise by the question. • Late submission will result in ZERO mark. • The work should be your own, copying from students or other resources will result in ZERO mark. • Use Times New Roman font for all your answers. Description and Instructions Pg. 01 Description and Instructions Project Description: This project is an opportunity for you to practice your knowledge and skills to analyze different interfaces for websites that you explore followed by the design implications of the cognitive processes. Moreover, it will allow you to develop skills of working in teams. • Total Marks = 14 Project Report Presentation 10 marks 4 marks • Group Size = 2- 4 members. • One group member (group leader) should submit all files: Project Report and Presentation Slides on blackboard. Marks will be given based on your submission and quality of the contents. Project Report • Each Project Report will be evaluated according to the marking criteria mentioned in each question section. Presentation Grading Criteria: Complete content (Introduction, body, and conclusion) 2 mark Effective use of time (max. 8-10 mints) 1 mark Voice projection and loudness/ Eye contact/ Confidence and 1 mark attitude Question One Pg. 02 Learning Outcome(s): Explain cognitive, social, and emotional aspects of different types of user interfaces Demonstrate data gathering, analysis, and presentation techniques for discovering user interface requirements Question One 4 Marks a) Select any three websites of your choice and enlist five good and five bad features of all the websites. (2.5 Marks) b) Evaluate and discuss your selected website ranking based on usability, accessibility, and User experience (UX) criteria. (1.5 Marks) Question Two Pg. 03 Learning Outcome(s): Describe and apply various interaction evaluation techniques Question Two 1 Marks Summarize the different aspects of the website that you selected and suggestion(s) for improvements. (maximum 250 words) Question Three Pg. 04 Learning Outcome(s): Illustrate prototyping for interaction design and explain practical facets of interface construction Question Three 5 Marks a) Design three interfaces for any application or website that you propose by following the design implications for the cognitive processes. (3 marks) b) Explain what are the design implications that you follow in each interface. (2 marks) (You may use any software to design your interfaces) The image below is an example for three different interfaces.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||