Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology COS70004 User-Centred Design Critique ILO Critique current issues in User Centred Design and their implications for software

development practice. Purpose: In this assessment piece you will evaluate a particular User Centred Design practice or theory (as presented in an academic paper) and assess its importance or

relevance to software development practice. This is an independent research project. Individual Assessment

This assessment is worth 10% of the unit. It is graded out 10 marks. Submit via Blackboard as per instructions (use Turnitin to check for plagiarism).

No resubmits are allowed for this task. Topic Paper: Hertzum, M 2016, 'A usability test is not an interview', interactions, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 82-84. Resources: Swinburne Library Human-Computer Interaction Reference Guide (in particular

Databases/ACM Digital Library) UNSW Academic Support website has some excellent advice about how to write a critical review and writing for academia in general. Also see Monash Universities

Learning Support website for more assistance with academic writing. Swinburne Library guide to how to do referencing Deliverables Critique of Topic paper (1,500 (min) to 2,000 (max) words) to be marked by tutor. Marking Criteria

Critique of the discussion paper: ■ addresses topic question ■ relates topic question to UCD process and/or principles Content material and issues discussed must go beyond the unit lecture notes and task guides (i.e., must show evidence of reading one or more of the following: ■ topic paper,

■ prescribed text book (e.g., Hartson & Pyla), ■ other related text books, ■ journal articles, government publications, etc), Ideas and issues discussed must be related back to work completed for group

project. In-text referencing and reference sections according to Harvard style Professional presentation User-Centred Design Critique Introduction

An important tool in formative usability evaluations is the think aloud technique where users verbally report what they are thinking about while doing an evaluation. Think aloud helps the investigator understand why a user clicks on a particular button or link rather than another. For this assessment task, critique Hertzum's (2016) argument that a variation of the think aloud he refers to as 'relaxed thinking aloud' is not always appropriate for usability evaluations. Use the following structure in your critique: Section 1: Introduction In this section you should consider:

■ What is the purpose of the article? ■ Define any key terms Section 2: Significance In this section consider:

■ Is the problem important? Section 2: Evidence In this section consider: ■ What arguments are made to support the author's position?

■ What evidence is used to support their position?

■ How convincing are the arguments/evidence presented? ■ Can you find any counter evidence or have an opposing argument? Section 3: Implications for software development In this section consider: ■ What are the implications of the paper for the software development community?

■ What are the implications of the paper to you? ■ How has this paper changed your views (if at all)? ■ How could you see applying these ideas to your work practice, or the work practice of your organisation? Section 4: Conclusion

■ Provide a short summary of your critique References A detailed list of material referenced in the text of the assessment.

Page 2 of 5 User-Centred Design Critique Failure to appropriately reference material from previously published sources such as the web

or journal articles etc (i.e., plagiarism) will result in a FAIL grade. The list of references must be presented using approved referencing style such as Harvard or APS (see Blackboard/Assessment/ Guide to Referencing). Include (appropriately referenced) web pages (include data accessed). Include references for any images used. It should be clear whether you created an image or downloaded it from another source.

When referencing make sure you use appropriate 'in-text' citation. For example, when mentioning the work of Courage and Baxter in-text, use the format: Any references cited in the text should then be included in the Reference section using Harvard style, for example:

Courage, C & Baxter, K, 2005, Understanding your users: A practical guide to user requirements, methods, tools and techniques, Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco. Note there are different styles for different reference types (e.g., journal articles, web pages etc). See the guidelines provided by the library in the Resources section of this document. Note 1: Plagiarism is the submission of work that is not your own for which you claim credit.

Work in which plagiarism is evident will be given an overall fail grade. Please see Avoiding Plagiarism (http://www.swinburne.edu.au/plagiarism). Note 2: Use the Turnitin link on Blackboard to run a plagiarism check before submitting. It can take some time for the check to return a result (so do not leave it until the last minute). In addition to checks of the internet the final Turnitin report to tutoring staff also includes a comparison with other student submissions. While we encourage you to discuss work with your peers DO NOT share any text with other students. Similarities with other students will be detected

and reported by Turnitin. Note 3: Do not use wikipedia, blogs or other unmoderated sites as references. … Marking Criteria to follow below Page 3 of 5 Courage and Baxter (2005) suggest the following guidelines for conducting interviews….

User-Centred Design Critique Marking Criteria Assessment Criteria: Title Page

Criteria Not Ready to Pass Pass-Credit Distinction-HD Title page and table of contents Missing some information. Contains all required information. Automated table of contents, use of heading styles Assessment Criteria: Introduction

Criteria Not Ready to Pass Pass-Credit Distinction High Distinction Introduction Summary is not of the article/research paper

specified in the assignment requirements. Summary shows poor

understanding of the paper. Summarises the main points of the article/research paper.

Pass-Credit Level plus, summary shows a good understanding of the article/research paper. Distinction Level plus, excellent summary

paper that captures the key points of the article/research. Assessment Criteria: Body Criteria Not Ready to Pass Pass-Credit Distinction High Distinction

Significance No or limited assessment of significance of the article/research

paper. The significance and contribution of the paper

is critically assessed. Some minor misinterpretations of the article/ research paper. Pass-Credit Level plus, accurate and balanced assessment of the significance of the article/research

paper. Distinction Level plus, shows excellent understanding of the article/research paper

and it's contribution to the software development

Arguments and use of evidence Claims made by paper are not addressed, or claims are misinterpreted. No or limited assessment of the use of evidence in the paper. Arguments and evidence presented in the paper are summarised and some attempt is made to evaluate the soundness of the arguments and/or evidence

(i.e., how convincing is the argument/evidence). Pass-Credit Level

and balanced overview of the evidence and arguments

presented with no major omissions or misunderstandings. Good attempt at

evaluating the use of argument/ evidence to support the authors/s position. Distinction Level plus shows a good understanding of the supporting literature

beyond the article/ research paper. Implications Implications of the article/research paper are not discussed or discussion is very limited.

Implications of the article/research paper are discussed in a broad sense.

are clearly related to personal activities. Distinction Level plus, shows excellent insight into the implications of the article/research paper. Page 4 of 5 User-Centred Design Critique

Assessment Criteria: Conclusion Criteria Not Ready to Pass Pass-Credit Distinction High Distinction Conclusions No summary of the critique provided or summary is very

limited. Summary of the critique is provided which covers the main points raised in

the critique and a final evaluation of the paper.

Pass-Credit Level plus, summary is clearly related to material that is discussed in the critique. No new information is provided. Evaluation of article/research paper is well supported by the material discussed in the critique. Assessment Criteria: References Criteria Not Ready to Pass Pass-Credit Distinction High Distinction References No references are

used beyond the topic paper. Some evidence of

literature review (e.g., referencing of background material).

Good use of evidence from literature review to support justification.

Referencing Inadequate acknowledgement of sources (plagiarism) (e.g., text cut and pasted from internet or other sources without appropriate acknowledgement).*

See library help guide http://

www.swinburne.edu.au/lib/researchhelp/harvard_style.html or referencing guide on Blackboard. References include

wikipedia entry. Some minor errors

in acknowledgement. Any direct quotes are referenced with quotation marks and page number.

Reference section complete.

References mostly peer reviewed papers or from authoritative sources. At least one academic/journal paper is referenced. Adequate acknowledgment of sources (i.e., quotes used appropriately, references cited correctly for both quoted and paraphrased information, items appear in reference list and are specified correctly),

in-text referencing used to support claims. More than one reference from peer reviewed journal paper or authoritative sources. References section formatted consistently (e.g.,

alphabetically, Harvard style - see Referencing guide on Blackboard) Reference section complete. Source of images referenced. Page 5 of 5