HFSD Assignment assessment criteria Project Justification 15 % of total mark Criteria Fail D C B A Quality of justification 15% Little or no justification provided Has demonstrated some understanding of providing a cost benefit analysis Satisfactory attempt at the justification – may convince with a bit more work Very good attempt the costs and benefits are clearly demonstrated and a persuasive case has been made Excellent. Your case is so strong you could be charging a much higher rate and still get the work! Usability Specification(10% of total mark) Criteria Fail D C B A Usability Specification (10%) Specification demonstrates little or no understanding of usability specifications or no example specification submitted. Specification provided but not complete Demonstrates some misconceptions about usability. Usability spec provided. Good range of goals specified that could be used to evaluate the design. Most evaluation criteria appropriate. Very Good example spec provided. V good and generally appropriate evaluation criteria Excellent spec. Demonstrated full understanding of usability. Set appropriate criteria and used appropriate measures correctly. Critical Analysis & Evaluation report (45% + 10 % for the usability specification)Total 55% Criteria Fail D C B A Evidence of evaluation 15% No evidence of or very limited evidence of an evaluation of the site Some evidence at least one technique applied Good evidence of attempt at evaluation and evidence of more than one technique applied Very Good evidence of attempt at evaluation and evidence of several evaluation techniques being used Excellent evaluation and very good evidence of the techniques used Analysis of the site 15% No evidence of or very limited & inadequate analysis A reasonable attempt at providing an analysis of the site based on the evaluation undertaken Good attempt at providing an analysis of the site based on the evaluation techniques used with several aspects analysed to a good level Results analysed to a very good level. An excellent and very detailed analysis of the site based on the evaluation techniques used Design rationale critique 10% No critique of the design – a basic description of what is on the interface without any explanation of why the interface appears as it does. No consideration of the key Human Factors elements not addressed within the design Very limited critique of the design of the site. A basic attempt made to identify good and bad features with only a limited reference to general design principles. Some consideration of the design elements. Some reference to HCI texts and/or recommendations provided to justify your critique of the site. Good justification of the reasons for your critique of the site with good reference to texts and/or recommendations of other similar web based systems to justify your critique Excellent critique of the design of the system with appropriate and very good references to texts and/or recommendations or discussion of the design of other similar systems Human Factors elements 5% Demonstrates little or no understanding of how knowledge of the user influences the design of the system A basic attempt showing some understanding of how knowledge of the user influences the design of the system Identifies some relevant characteristics of the user population and some of the associated design requirements that the site has or has not addressed Identifies most relevant characteristics and task requirements for users of this system and identifies most of the associated design requirements that have or have not been addressed Identifies all relevant human factors that the site has or has not addressed population and relates these appropriately to the associated design requirements Low/High Fidelity Prototype & Recommendations (30% of total mark) Criteria Fail D C B A Quality of the prototype (10% ) Demonstrates little or no understanding of the use of low fidelity prototyping in the design process, demonstrates little or no effort. A basic attempt showing some understanding of how design ideas can be communicated on paper. A good low fidelity prototype that conveys a coherent picture of how the interface will look and feel through a number of annotated drawings sketches etc.. A good attempt at conveying a coherent picture of how the interface will look and feel through drawings and also the use of a high fidelity prototype with several parts of the prototype containing interactive elements Excellent communication of user interaction, graphical style and screen layouts in the form of a high fidelity prototype that has extensive interaction elements. Justification of proposed Design (10%) A poor attempt with little effort or thought put into the justification of your proposed design. Little or no evidence of relating your design to the results of your evaluation A basic attempt to justify the design. Some evidence of relating your design to the results of your evaluation A satisfactory attempt at justifying the proposed design with clear evidence of relating your design to the results of your evaluation and to Human Factor and interface design principles A very good attempt at justifying the proposed design with good evidence of relating your design to the results of your evaluation and to Human Factor and interface design principles Excellent attempt at justifying the proposed design with strong and sound evidence of relating your design to the results of your evaluation and to Human Factor and interface design principles Summary of recommendations (5%) No summary or very limited summary of key recommendations A basic set of recommendations provided A good set and range of recommendations A very good and comprehensive set of recommendations on how to improve the design of the site An excellent summary of the key recommendations on how the site could be improved General Comments