lol

1. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Department of Computer Science
Coursework Title: Peer Assessed Group Coursework: Design, Prototyping and
Interpretive Evaluation of an Alternate Interaction Design
Module Name: Usability Engineering
Module Code: 6062COMP
Level: 6
Credit Rating: 24
Weighting: 50%
Maximum mark available: 100
Lecturer: Andy Symons
Contact: If you have any issues with this coursework you may contact your lecturer.
Contact details are:
Email: a.symons@ljmu.ac.uk
Room: Room 717, James Parsons Building, Byrom Street Complex
Hand-out Date: 8th
January 2018
Hand-in Date: 23rd
March 2018
Hand-in Method: Via Blackboard
Feedback Date: 17th
April 2018
Feedback Method: Via email
Programmes: B.Sc. (Hons) Computer Animation and Visualisation
B.Sc. (Hons) Computer Studies
B.Sc. (Hons) Information Systems
B.Sc. (Hons) Information Technology and Multimedia Computing
B.Sc. (Hons) Software Engineering
Introduction
This coursework is aimed at introducing you to the interpretive evaluation process which will
include you:
1. Producing high quality design solutions and prototypes (Learning Outcome 3), and
2. Critically evaluating designs against user requirements (Learning Outcome 4)
Interpretive evaluation requires the participation of users so you will have to take into account the
ethical considerations before proceeding.

2. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
The peer assessment in this coursework will require each member of the group to fill in a single ROW of a
peer assessment table; an example table for a group of four is shown below:
NAMES Gives Person A Gives Person B Gives Person C Gives Person D Total (400%)
Person A Row 400
Person B Row 400
Person C Row 400
Person D Row 400
If there are any disagreements between group members, the group may be called in to discuss a solution
with the module leader. If you do not provide a peer assessment table, the module leader will assume an
equal share of the marks. The module leader will have the final decision over peer assessment.
Learning Outcome to be assessed
3. Produce high quality design solutions and prototypes
4. Critically evaluating designs against user requirements
Detail of the task(s)
Before you can include a user in any experiment, YOU MUST complete the ethics form and
have it signed by A. Symons or D. England; it should then be returned to A. Symons. This
also requires you to create a consent form for each of your experiments, which also needs
to be authorised by A. Symons or D. England before it can be used. A consent form needs
to be filled in by each and every user participating in your experiments and then returned to
A. Symons.
Task 1: Predicting Efficiency and Specifying a Hypothesis
A. This will require you to review the outcome of coursework 1 to identify the problem you think
exists with the existing system. The problematic part of the interface MUST be able to be measured
using at least one efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction measures.
You can discuss this with A. Symons or D. England during the scheduled lab time.
The problem and identified measures must be described in section 1A of your report.
B. You are then required create a mid-fidelity prototype of your solution. This non-interactive
prototype needs to look as realistic as possible as it will be used in your user participative
experiment in Task 2 below.
Your prototype should be documented in section 1B of your report.
C. Use the CogTool to derive predictions of your identified efficiency measure(s) for the original and
solution interaction designs; using your screenshots (taken during coursework 1) and prototypes.
Your CogTool results should be documented in section 1C or your report. Your cogtool project files
will be submitted separate from the report.

3. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
Task 2: Specify and Execute a User Participative Experiment
A. With regards to your solution, specify a hypothesis with a testable result; using one or more of your
identified measures. This should be documented in section 2A of your report.
B. Using the web-based approach given in the lab tutorials or your own preferred platform, develop a
high-fidelity interactive prototype for your solution which captures quantifiable interactive
measurements, that can include measurements such as:
Timings, number of clicks, number of errors, task completion etc.
This should be described in section 2B of your report using screen shots and code snippets. A full
copy of the development source code files will be submitted separately from the report. For full
marks, a high-fidelity prototype of the original interaction design should be developed also and an
experiment as described in 2C below ran for it. This will give you two sets of results to more
formally analyse in section 2D below.
C. Create a consent form and have it authorised by A. Symons or D. England for a user participative
experiment that explains what is being captured. Create a questionnaire to capture any personal
information (age, sex etc.) as well as any require user satisfaction feedback. Run the experiments
ensuring all captured data is recorded and held anonymously. Provide a full copy of your results
and questionnaire data in section 2C of your report.
D. Analyse the results of your experiments and appropriately use graphs to discuss whether the results
confirm your hypothesis or not. A spreadsheet application will prove useful in aiding you to
statistically analyse your results and producing graphs. This should be detailed in section 2D of your
report.
What you should hand in
One member of the team should submit a single zip file containing your report documenting your attempt
for each of the tasks above as well as the required cogtool and development directories/files.
Marking Scheme/Assessment Criteria
The coursework uses a ten point marking scheme for each task along with a multiplier.
Task 1A Multiplier *1
Task 1B Multiplier *1.5
Task 1C Multiplier *1
Task 2A Multiplier *1
Task 2B Multiplier *2
Task 2C Multiplier *2
Task 2D Multiplier *1.5

4. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
The ten point marking scheme uses the Level 6 Grade Descriptors from the University Curriculum Design
Guide:
Mark Characteristic Descriptor
9-10 Exceptional
Pass
Exemplary attainment of all learning outcomes.
Demonstrates an exceptional grasp of key concepts with comprehensive
application to a specific area of study.
Offers an exhaustive exploration of the literature and evidence-base.
The material covered is accurate and relevant.
The argument is highly sophisticated.
The writing style is refined.
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style
8 Outstanding
Pass
Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes, with some met to an exemplary
standard
Demonstrates an outstanding grasp of key concepts with comprehensive
application to a specific area of study
Extends far beyond expected levels of engagement with the literature and
evidence-base
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is generally very astute
The writing style is refined
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style
7 Excellent
Pass
Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes
Demonstrates an excellent grasp of key concepts with wide-ranging application
to a specific area of study
Thorough use the literature and evidence-base
The material covered is accurate and relevant
The argument is persuasive and there are very perceptive elements
The writing style is highly advanced
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style
6 Good Pass Good attainment of all learning outcomes
Demonstrates a good grasp of key concepts with generally sound application to
a specific area of study
Good consideration of the literature and evidence-base that develops from
recommended readings
The material covered is accurate and relevant

5. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
The argument is persuasive
The writing style is well clear and readable, with some sophisticated phrasing
Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style
5 Clear Pass Adequate attainment of all learning outcomes, with some met to an good
standard
Demonstrates a good grasp of key concepts with limited application to a specific
area of study
Sufficient consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but little
consideration beyond recommended readings
The material covered is mostly accurate and relevant
The argument is straightforward and relatively clear
The writing style is clear and readable.
Generally well presented and organised, but does not always conform to
conventions of academic presentation
4 Threshhold/
Satisfactory
Pass
Adequate attainment of all learning outcomes
Demonstrates a reasonable grasp of key concepts with limited application to a
specific area of study
Basic consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but restricted to
recommended readings
There are some inaccuracies or irrelevant materials, but there is sufficient
accurate material to suggest a threshold level of understanding
The argument is relatively clear, although some elements are difficult to
understand
The writing style is reasonable and there are very few areas of confusion and/or
errors in spelling/grammar.
Good presentation that may include some organisational errors and/or tendency
not to conform to conventions of academic presentation
3 Needs
Improvement
Meets most, but not all learning outcomes
Demonstrates a reasonable grasp of key concepts, but no application to a
specific area of study
Minor consideration of the literature and evidence-base, but inadequate use of
recommended reading and no exploration outside that.
Some materials is accurate, but the amount of inaccurate or irrelevant materials
indicates insufficient understanding of key concepts
The argument is poorly defined and defended
Writing style is acceptable. The structure is reasonable, but there are some areas

6. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
of confusion and/or some errors in spelling/grammar
Acceptable presentation that may include some organisational errors and a
tendency not to conform to conventions of academic presentation
2 Needs
Significant
Improvement
Does not meet most learning outcomes
Demonstrates a poor grasp of key concepts with no application to a specific area
of study
Superficial consideration of the literature and evidence-base
There are major inaccuracies or significant amounts of irrelevant content
The argument is very weak
Writing style tends to be weak. The structure is confused and/or there are
numerous errors in spelling/grammar.
Generally weak or untidy presentation that may include some organisational
errors and does not to conform to conventions of academic presentation
1 Needs
Substantial
Work
Does not meet any learning outcomes
Demonstrates a fundamentally flawed understanding of key concepts
No engagement with the literature and evidence-base
The material covered is inaccurate or irrelevant
The argument is incoherent
Writing style is poor. The structure is disorganised and/or there are too many
errors in spelling/grammar.
Weak or untidy presentation
Recommended reading
The module lecture slides, tutorial and lab exercises. You will also find several books in the ‘reading list’ on
Blackboard that will help you. The Alan Dix et al book ‘Human Computer Interaction’, 2nd
or 3rd
Edition.
Extenuating Circumstances
If something serious happens that means that you will not be able to complete this assignment, you
need to contact the module leader as soon as possible. There are a number of things that can be
done to help, such as extensions, waivers and alternative assessments, but we can only arrange
this if you tell us. To ensure that the system is not abused, you will need to provide some evidence
of the problem.
More guidance is available at https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/public-information/student-
regulations/guidance-policy-and-process
Any coursework submitted late without the prior agreement of the module leader will
receive 0 marks.
Academic Misconduct

7. Document title Template for Coursework
Revision 1.0
Date 05/10/14
Author AS
The University defines Academic Misconduct as ‘any case of deliberate, premeditated cheating,
collusion, plagiarism or falsification of information, in an attempt to deceive and gain an unfair
advantage in assessment’. This includes attempting to gain marks as part of a team without
making a contribution. The Faculty takes Academic Misconduct very seriously and any suspected
cases will be investigated through the University’s standard policy (https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-
us/public-information/student-regulations/appeals-and-complaints). If you are found guilty, you
may be expelled from the University with no award.
It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand what constitutes Academic
Misconduct and to ensure that you do not break the rules. If you are unclear about what is
required, please ask.
For more information you are directed to following the University web pages:
• Information regarding academic misconduct: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/public-
information/student-regulations/appeals-and-complaints
• Information on study skills: https://www2.ljmu.ac.uk/studysupport/
• Information regarding referencing:
https://www2.ljmu.ac.uk/studysupport/69049.htm