2013-14 Term 1 G2 Change-Makers

From Interaction Design and Prototyping
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Assignments G1 G2 Technology


Assignment Deliverables Self Assessment Comparison to other Teams
A3. Low-fidelity Prototype Deliverables DateTime: 12/9/2013, 11:54AM
  • Problem and Solution statements are believable and follows the Change brief.
  • Personas are clear with sufficient details and cover the basis of the users of the system.
  • Scenarios match both the problem and solution statement. They cover the basic details of the system.
  • Scenarios have sufficient details on the task, and shows an unexpected situation.
  • Flow diagram is clear and matches the scenario.
  • Paper prototype is clear and readable and follows the flow diagram.
DateTime: 15/09/2013, 8:48AM

Diversity, Find Me An Ad

The problem and solution statement are believable and their application fits.

They have two personas with sufficient information. The scenarios are believable and clear, matching the issue that they wish to solve, however both scenarios seem rather straightforward and they do not appear to have one which shows an unexpected or inconvenient issue. They could perhaps tweak their scenarios to include this. Their flow diagram is much better than ours as it has a start and end point and indicates only the main important flow. Their prototype walk-through is easy to follow as they separated them into their main functions. They could perhaps do a walkthrough which shows how the user would interact with the system if an unexpected situation comes up.

A4. Heuristic Evaluation (End of Iteration 1)

Deliverables DateTime: 19 September 2013, 11:45AM
  • Opportunities to find problems were given to evaluators during the heuristic evaluations by allowing evaluators the freedom to fully test the application out by themselves, clicking on buttons and performing the actions
  • Problems are well-organized and compiled without duplicates
  • Problem descriptions are clear and concise
  • Solutions were provided for all problems, both severe and minimal
  • Provided some solutions that evaluators did not provide
  • Provided some problems and solutions that were not found by evaluators
  • Heuristic evaluation results are easy to read
  • Self evaluation and comments on other teams are completed before class
DateTime: 19 September 2013, 11:50AM

The Eagles, SoCAL

The organization of the problems by the Eagles is much more detailed than how our team did our page. The Eagles provided a brief overview of how their heuristic was conducted and they summarized their findings into easy to read tables. They also organized their problems according to their severity ratings so it is easy to refer and view.

A5. High-fidelity Prototype 1: A Skeleton and a Plan Deliverables DateTime: 27 September 2013, 10:35AM
  • Link to runnable and codes are available
  • Scenarios are clear and concise without unnecessary details, consistent with the flow diagrams
  • Work items are broken down and are specific
  • Work items refer to both scenarios and changes
  • Buffer dates are included into implementation plan to plan for unexpected issues or to finish incomplete work items
  • Changes addresses all major problems and
  • Improve screen shots to be more consistent with flow diagram and major views
  • Improve deadline meetings and work item completion; keep an ambitious but well-executed implementation plan
DateTime: 27 September 2013, 11:20AM

Team 4 (TeamYOLO), Bill Splitter

  • Screenshots shows all major views and roughly matches their flow diagram.
  • Screenshots matches their scenarios as well and they show the connection of each scenario in their screenshot diagram (eg. Scenario 1 snaps receipt, Scenario 2 manual entry)
  • Work items are broken down where one member is assigned to each task and each task related to at least a scenario and/or change
  • Changes address all major issues and shows the before and after of the paper prototype.
A6. High-fidelity Prototype 2: Meat on the Bones Deliverables DateTime: 4 October 2013, 01:06AM
  • Current screenshots are consistent with the flow diagram however, not all screenshots are done or up yet.
  • Scenarios and flow diagram matches our current implementation plan.
  • Implementation Plan was updated.
  • Team is currently behind schedule in terms of fleshing out our prototype and major views and will need to catch up to speed in the coming week.
DateTime: 4 October 2013, 11:53AM

Team 3 (D'PENZ), ING Bank's Procurement Workflow Management System

  • The major views for their prototype have all been done up and consistent with their flow diagram.
  • They are on time for all the plan items for this week and early for a few others.
A7. High-fidelity Prototype 3: Ready for Testing Deliverables DateTime: 18 October 2013, 11:06AM
  • Almost all screenshots are up with the exception of the missing user guide page.
  • Screenshots are consistent with our new and updated flow diagram.
  • All scenarios are fully functional.
  • Scenarios and flow diagram matches our current implementation plan.
  • Implementation Plan was updated.
  • Team has catched up in fleshing out the functionalities but is still slightly behind schedule.
  • Team needs to improve on remaining on schedule.
  • Self evaluation and comments on other teams are complete.
DateTime: 18 October 2013, 11:20AM

Team 1 (Carpe Diem), Mobile bus charter service

  • Screenshots are arranged accordingly to their two scenarios make it easy and clear to understand and comprehend.
  • Their changes to their implementation plan are explained comprehensively.
A8. Laboratory Test

(End of Iteration 2)

Deliverables DateTime: 27th October 2013, 11pm
  1. Goals: Our goals were achieved and was clear and simple to understand.
  2. Tasks, Data, & Documents: All documents required was prepared before hand to ensure that the test runs smoothly. We felt that we have done will in terms of ensuring that all the tasks were well designed. In return, the data collected was helpful to us.
  3. Results: Data collected was consistent with goals. Moreover, new discoveries were made that were useful to help improve the application.
  4. Changes: Changes made were consistent to results collected.
  5. General: We made sure that all documents were easy to run. Not much explanation was required during the lab test.
DateTime: 27 October 2013, 05:28AM

Team 4 (TeamYOLO), Bill Splitter

  • The manner of which they compiled their results is very interesting; the 4-dimension compiled rating gives an overview of the goals that they were trying to achieve with the lab experiment.
  • They also showed the amended design to their prototype, not just explaining it, based on the feedback they received from the lab experiment.
A9. Web Experiment 1: Setup Deliverables DateTime: 13 November 2013, 10:30AM
  • Justification made to our amends of our prototype.
  • Our experiment fits to the feedback from Prof Ben and fellow classmates given during our class presentation and the feedback received during our lab experiment.
  • We could have integrated our application with an external analytical tool to enhance our data collection.
DateTime: 13 November 2013, 10:45AM

Team 4 (TeamYOLO), Bill Splitter

  • Team YOLO's web experiment implemented a database to capture the variables of the users who participated in their experiment.
  • They also chose to measure the number of incorrect dishes allocated so as to figure the effectiveness of of each layout.
  • They made use of Google Analytics to enhance and automate their data collection.
A10. Web Experiment 2: Analysis Deliverables DateTime: 19 November 2013, 12:12AM
  • Our team managed to recruit a total of 40 participants for our two tests, 10 male and 10 female participants for each of our tests.
  • Our participants also fall into different age ranges and different occupations to get a good feel of our potential users of our applications.
  • Our conclusions were reasonable and well-relatable to the statistical analyses we evaluated.
  • Our team changed our menu layout for our prototype from a “diamond ring” representation to a “wristwatch” representation of the Accessories tab based on the results we had gathered.
DateTime: 18 November 2013, 11:00PM

Team 10(Diversity), Find Me An Ad

  • Diversity managed to recruit a total of 42 participants to help with their web experiment. This bigger group allows them to observe some more additional behaviours that may not have been noticed with a small group of 20 participants.
  • The team's hypothetical reasoning for why it may have taken a faster time to find the search box due to the position of the question in the survey is also interesting.
  • The use of various pie charts make it easy to understand their results and breakdowns.
  • The team also included some limitations to their web experiment.

A11. Poster Session (End of Iteration 3)

Deliverables DateTime: 18 November 2013, 11:35PM
  • Our team's poster and video states our user problem and how our application, iCloset, attempts to address the issue.
  • Our poster shows how our prototype evolved from it's paper form to it's high fidelity form.
  • We could have included more details on how our evaluation results contributed to our prototype's evolution.
  • With better technical skills, our prototype could better simulate the experience of a full functional application.
DateTime: 18 November 2013, 11:25PM

Team 4 (TeamYOLO), Bill Splitter

  • Team YOLO's poster and video is interesting and intriguing, while still displaying all that it needs to display on their prototype evolution throughout the semester.
  • Their solution for their application solves an everyday problem and their end prototype is visually appealing and has a high chance of being downloaded and used if implemented outside of IDP class.


Team Name Change-Makers
Project Name iCloset
Design Brief Change
Problem Users often find it difficult to recall what clothes they wore previously on a certain date or to meet a certain person and they are concern of wearing the same outfit too many times or within too close of a time span.
Solution A mobile application that allows the user to view what they wore previously and to get suggestions on clothes that they have not yet worn to the event or appointment.

G2 Deliverables

Iteration 1 A2 Observations
A3 Personas
Scenarios A3 A5
A3 Alternative Designs
A3 Paper Prototype
Flow Diagram A3 A5
A4 Heuristic Evaluation
Iteration 2 A5 Implementation Plan
A8 Lab Test
Iteration 3 A9 Web Experiment Setup
A10 Web Experiment Analysis
A11 Poster
A11 Video

High-fidelity Prototypes

Runnable 1 Name iCloset
Type Stand-alone application
Platform Android 4.0.3 on Samsung Galaxy SII
Toolkits/Frameworks Used Android SDK r22
Major Releases Iteration 2, Iteration 3
GitHub repository