2013-14 Term 1 G2 Diversity

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 12 SEP 2013 1:30pm :
  • Team Page | Our problem statement is practical and realistic, and our solution is believable. Both in accordance with our design brief - Glance.
  • Persona | They are clear, with sufficient details and exemplifies important user categories. It is also used to specify our target consumer base.
  • Scenarios | They show practical problems and situations faced by people from targeted user categories. The storyboard is used as a summary of our scenario descriptions.
  • Flow Diagram | Flow diagram matches the scenario listed
  • Paper Prototype | It is uploaded with clear headings and respective descriptions. It explores all basic features aimed to be in prototype. The overview done by POP is attached.
  • General Feedback | We should think of an alternative design to generate better ideas and perhaps adding one more persona will give us a broader spectrum.

12 SEP 2013 1.45pm:


  • Their problem statement is realistic and they have a provided a practical solution.
  • Their scenarios are split into As-If and To-Be, and makes understanding their problem statement and seeing how it ties up to their solution easier.
  • Their paper prototype is detailed a gives a run though of the scenario.

A4. Heuristic Evaluation (End of Iteration 1)

Deliverables 19 SEP 2013 11am:
  • We have analysed and consolidated all the problems raised by our evaluators.
  • From 44 problems, we have condensed it to 15 problems addressed in our problem page.
  • Other than solutions provided by our evaluators, we have formulated some of our own as well.
  • For every problem, a viable and practical solutions that would eliminate the problem in its totality or reduce the severity of the problem.
  • Overall, we feel that our heuristic findings are easy to interpret and condense.
19 SEP 2013 11.20am:

4. Team YOLO

  • Their team has separated their problems according to the severity which is more organized.
  • They have also given an overview of their heuristic findings at the beginning of their page.
  • In their general overall results, they have also noted down insights which they have found.
A5. High-fidelity Prototype 1: A Skeleton and a Plan Deliverables 26 SEP 2013 11.30am:
  • Prototype | For the prototype, we have screen shot 4 screens that forms the basis of our web application.
  • Scenarios and Flow | From the feedback, we have edited and improved our flow diagram accordingly to fully reflect our two scenarios and the changes made to our prototype. We have colour coded the diagram to clearly demarcate which entities are involved in the specified scenarios and which are not.
  • Plan | While formulating our plan, we made sure to factor in sufficient buffer time :) Yay! Every activity is attached to an individual with the designated date to be completed by. The plan has been updated for week 6 which everything on time and completed!
  • Changes | There were some major changes in our prototypes, all of which of clearly listed which a horizontal side by side comparison, as well as a detailed list where each change was addressed and visually supported. The changes has affected out flow in the consolidation of 2 pages.
  • General Feedback | This week displayed a number of changes which we felt, tremendously improved the form of our prototype. The feedback we got during the heuristic evaluation coupled with our own observation aided in this iteration and there is a clear direction of how the web application is forming up :D
26 SEP 2013 2.00pm:


  • Their prototype is well formed and looks clean and well thought through. They have completely all of the pages with great precision with their paper prototype.
  • SixDotz's plan is very comprehensive and clear. And they linked almost all fields in the wiki, commitment and patience!
  • Their changes are well listed too with visual aid to articulate the comparison between the old and new paper prototype.
A6. High-fidelity Prototype 2: Meat on the Bones Deliverables 3 OCT 2013 11.45am:
  • Prototype | The updated prototype reflects the progress marked by our implementation plan. We ensure that each screen shot of the prototype clearly annotated all the changes made. While seeing to that they are aligned with the updated flow diagram. We have placed the links to runnables and code.
  • Deliverables | Our scenarios and flow diagram has been vetted and updated accordingly. They are more coherent and aligned with our current plan. Our implementation plan has been simultaneously updated and clearly state the progress or modification of A6. However, we could have though more thoroughly about dealing with the unexpected.
  • Changes | This week, there is no changes made to our project in terms of business case or implementation plan. Everything is going according as planned.
  • Progress | Although the was slight modifications through the week, our progress has still gone well. We have listed the tasks completed.
  • General | Overall, there were some important ramification that needed to consolidated in A6, but fortunately, we managed to deal with them, ready to tackle A7!
13 OCT 2013 12.15am:

6. Change-Makers

  • We felt that one thing which team excelled in was their implementation plan. They have section their task for the subsequent weeks in a succinct manner through to week 10 and made extra columns in preperation for the rest of the semester.
  • They have been consistent with their orderly presentation of their screen shots. Coupled with their walk through of screen shots which is easy to follow and understand.
A7. High-fidelity Prototype 3: Ready for Testing Deliverables 18 OCT 2013 1.00am:
  • Prototype| We have better our prototype and ensured that all functions are seamlessly integrated together. As from last week, the prototype is align and reflects our flow diagram which has been kept constant in A7. Although there is still work to be done to better our web app appearance, we have completed the core functionalities.
  • Deliverables| The implementation plan has been updated accordingly with our progress. This week, there was a need to modify the deadline for tasks. Fortunately, we had enough buffer to keep us on time. With regards to the scenario and flow diagram, there has been not change from A6.
  • Changes| The changes made corresponds to the decision the team made in regards to the project direction. We have decided to remove a database and focus on bettering the integration and link amongst our functionality.
  • Progress| This week's progress has been smooth. The progress made this week follows our plan in week 5 with the exception from the changes we have decided upon.
  • General| Overall, we are doing well! Yay :D
18 Oct 2013 2.30pm:

1. Carpe Diem

  • They have clear flow of screen shots for both of their scenario. It is easy to follow and are aligned with their flow diagrams. Their methodical approach in presenting their prototype is orderly and clear.
  • They changes are reflected in their implementation plan and highlight the reasons for their change and subsequent modifications.
A8. Laboratory Test

(End of Iteration 2)

Deliverables 25 OCT 2013 11:45am:
  • Goals| For this week's assignment, our group created goals which were well structured and poses a distinct direction for our application. We expected a lot from our application and it was reflected in our goals. Overall, we felt that we managed to meet all of our goals and we are quite happy about that :)
  • Tasks, Data, & Documents| In planning for our study, we wanted to gather specific and helpful information. We created tasks that were well structured and clear for our testers to understand and act upon. Each task has a clear stating condition and ending condition to facilitate a good study. Questions for data collection yielded informative analysis.
  • Results| Through the study, there were a number of insights that definitely shed new light on the application and the user experience it gives. The data collected were mostly consistent with the goals created. Results are consolidated in to graph and summarized conclusions. Study also spouted new suggestions to be considered.
  • Changes| The prototype was changed to reflect the modification of functions that was necessary and would help the enhance user experience.
  • General| This week, we were a little tight on time, but we managed to pull through! We organized the forms and information, and felt like we learnt new insights from the study.

25 OCT 2013 2:00pm: 7. Whats The Fox Says

  • Their simulation of LateLiao is very innovative. The gif makes the run through of the application easier and follows a flow.
  • Their team continue with describing their target group, device and function ontop of their goals.
A9. Web Experiment 1: Setup Deliverables 1 Nov 2013 11:30am:
  • Changes to Prototype | For this iteration, we felt that we were rather ambitious to change the entire look and feel of our prototype. Since it was a major concern in our A8 results, we want ensure that the user interface looked interested and professional. Although we wished we could have change more things, we were unfortunately limited by time. :/
  • Experiment Design | Our experiment design was clear and purposefully, targeting at the exact crux of our web application's problem and solution. In all instances, we ensured to keep our dependent and independent variables consistent objective.
  • Experiment Implementation | Through our web experiment implementation, we were thorough in our walk-through as well as clear in our illustrations and explanations. We refered mostly to our changes and our task.
  • General | Overall we felt that our web experiment has the potential to yield good results! :)
1 Nov 2013 3.50pm:

1. Carpe Diem

  • Although they have quite a number of changes to their prototype, they ensure that the documentation for each change was noted down.
  • They were consistent in presenting their prototype and list down each screenshot for each function.
A10. Web Experiment 2: Analysis Deliverables 7 Nov 2013 11.30pm:
  • Participants | For our experiment, we managed to gather 42 participants!
  • Results | Our results presents a resounding agreement to our conclusion. Utilizing the T-test for our experiment, our statistical analysis shows a significant difference between our independent variable.
  • Conclusions & Changes | Changes were minute but yield significant impact on our web application. Overall, our conclusion is justified and and is well-illustrated.
  • General | Finally, we have ensured that our all documentation and results are clearly shown. Our statistical analysis and justification to our conclusion is well penned and comprehensive.
7 Nov 2013 11.30pm:

2. The Eagles

  • They were meticulous in presenting their summary of their experiment results
  • They were clear about what they were testing for and concluded with affirmation from their results

A11. Poster Session (End of Iteration 3)

Deliverables 13 Nov 2013 11pm:
  • Video: The video fully encompasses the motive and the rationale behind the formation of our web application in a timely and humorous manner. It was precise in then delivering the functions and benefits brought by our application and was communicated clearly. Featuring our group member Shanaaz, it was definitely entertaining and memorable.
  • Poster: Our poster is an abstraction of our entire journey through IDP. It consist of all of our major milestones and the progression and evolution of our prototype. It also showed how our testing and lab experiments further contributed to the end result of our application. Overall it was information was elaborate and the layout visually appealing.
  • Prototype: Although the concept of our prototype is minimalistic, it is extremely functional and easy to navigate through. Our prototype simulates the experience of a full formed application. Source code is proper and fully documented for future references.
  • Reflections: Reflection from all of our team has been insightful. Juniors who read them in the future would definitely look forward to the things they will learn in this course! :D
  • General: Overall, we felt that we did great in our poster and video and we are proud of it :) Hope you liked them too!
15 Nov 2013 7.30pm:

6. Change Makers

  • Detailed and extensive run through of their prototype
  • Clear articulation from their poster and video


Team Name Diversity
Project Name Find Me An Ad
Design Brief Glance
Problem There are not many platforms that consolidate a list of sales that are currently going on in Singapore. It is difficult for users to keep track of the latest sales that are happening. Existing platforms are not comprehensive or are outdated. It is tedious for the users to find sales and promotions on multiple sites.
Solution Build a web application that displays targeted sales happening according to users' location, and preferences. Incorporating crowd sourcing in the application will also ensure that the displayed sales ad will be tailored specifically to the user.

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 <Main App>
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
Runnable 2 Name <Admin App>
Type <Web application (Chrome)>
Platform <Microsoft Windows 7>
Toolkits/Frameworks Used <jQuery v1.10.2, jQueryUI v1.10.3>
Major Releases Iteration 2, Iteration 3
GitHub repository