2013-14 Term 1 G2 FUN,The Mentals

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

Assignments

Assignment Deliverables Self Assessment Comparison to other Teams
A3. Low-fidelity Prototype Deliverables 12th Sept 2013 12:24:
  1. Team page was up as per template
  2. Solutions were challenging and creative
  3. Personas were very detailed with a short overview of each persona
  4. Scenarios were very clear with unexpected situation
  5. Flow diagram matches scenarios
  6. Paper prototype was very neatly drafted and an overview with POP was attached
  7. Alternative designs were clear
  8. Documents were clear however self evaluation was carried out slightly late at 12:30pm 12th Sep 2013
12th Sept 2013 1041hrs

Team 7: LateLiao

  1. The scenarios was very well illustrated with comic strips. Very easy to understand.
  2. Alternative designs shows that the team has took into account trade-offs of alternative implementations. Pros and Cons of each implementation gives reader a clear view of why it was not included as their final design.
  3. Problem is very creative and useful as it happens very common in our daily lives.

A4. Heuristic Evaluation (End of Iteration 1)

Deliverables 19th September 2013, 11:45AM:
  1. Compiled all evaluation comments into 22 descriptive problems
  2. Provided implementable and creative solutions for each of the problems
  3. Heuristic evaluation results are organised and easy to read
  4. Area of improvement: Paper prototype may have been better than using POP App
20th September 2013, 8:20AM:

TeamYOLO - Bill Splitter Application

  • The team classified their problems based on their severity
  • They provided graphical representation that was illustrative
  • Multiple solutions were suggested for some of the problems
A5. High-fidelity Prototype 1: A Skeleton and a Plan Deliverables 26th September 2013, 11.56AM:
  1. Similar problems were grouped together under one change for easier reading and understanding
  2. Justifications were provided for problems that were not changed
  3. Implementation plan were detailed and structured
  • Prototype shows implemented UI on actual phone with appealing color scheme
  • Alternate flows clearly elaborated with diagram
  • Implementation plan are frequently updated
DateTime:30 September 13:05

TeamYOLO - Bill Splitter Application

  • Prototype shows implemented UI on actual phone with appealing color scheme
  • Alternate flows clearly elaborated with diagram
  • Implementation plan is frequently updated
A6. High-fidelity Prototype 2: Meat on the Bones Deliverables 24th Oct 2013 4:45am
  1. Sitemap of our currently developed prototype is being presented to show the app's navigation
  2. Scenario notes of undeveloped functions are listed to explain the missing link in the sitemap
  3. Drafted Use Case and Class Diagram for the app
  4. Segregated changes into different categories to provide clearer view on each category of changes
  5. Progress of assignment duly reported
24th Oct 2013 4:45AM

Team 6: iCloset

  1. Their implementation plan had specific headers to categorize task. (e.g. Coding, Testing)
  2. The related scenario in their implementation plan were linked very specifically and accurately to the task they performed.
A7. High-fidelity Prototype 3: Ready for Testing Deliverables 17th October 2013, 11:17AM:

Screenshots of run-able and changes to the application were detailed clearly. However, the progress was delayed due to underestimation of the technologies required for the project scope. Prompt changes to the implementation were made to ensure project delivery can be completed on time.

24/10/2013 6:00am

The Eagles SoCAL

  • The Eagles Developed a partial high fidelity prototype that give a very good gauge for the application's look and feel.
  • Their Prototype follows their description for progress closely and provided justifications for certain problems they faced.
  • Good and clear reflection of their progress which gives a very simple and clear understanding of what they have done for the week
A8. Laboratory Test

(End of Iteration 2)

Deliverables 24th October 2013: 5:23AM

Testing tasks and implementation plan are detailed and easy to understand & follow; testers are able to complete the testing easily. Goals were met well with the data results collected. However, the team can improve by estimating/planning better on time needed for project tasks.

24th October 2013 6:00am

Team 3: ING Bank

  1. The results that they had collated from the pilot and testing were very detailed and neatly presented.
  2. Changes to plan were very informative as they had the screenshot depicting the changes so it is easily understood.
  3. Their updated implementation plan shows very clearly at the task portion their changes and the movement of each task (e.g. MOVED from week 8 on 2 Oct 2013) This is very good as it shows the detail and gives an accountability of the movements in their implementation plan.
A9. Web Experiment 1: Setup Deliverables 31st October 2013, 11:34 AM

Web experiment has a precise and specific goal and is easy for users to understand the instruction with the clearly detailed implementation plan. Results that will be collected are useful and related well to the goal. Experiment scope is given the right amount to test without too much trouble, yet will produce adequate results

31st Oct 2013 11:55pm

Team 3: ING Bank

It is good that they managed to host their app up on SMU's server for us to test. The structure for this assignment is also very clear and we can easily understand changes in their prototype by referencing it to the photographs. For the web experiment, they went a step further to test an additional hypothesis that they felt was needed. Then, by listing out very clearly their hypothesis and dependent/independent variables, users to their wiki could easy participate in their experiment together with the walk-thru page's photographic instructions.

A10. Web Experiment 2: Analysis Deliverables DateTime: Comment your own work based on the grading rubric. Be as objective as you can on how you feel you did well and where you think you can improve.
DateTime:

Evaluated team's number and project name

Comment on why you think this work is better than your work

A11. Poster Session (End of Iteration 3)

Deliverables DateTime: Comment your own work based on the grading rubric. Be as objective as you can on how you feel you did well and where you think you can improve.
DateTime:

Evaluated team's number and project name

Comment on why you think this work is better than your work

FUN,The Mentals

Team Name FUN,The Mentals
Project Name MasterBed Alarm
Design Brief Time
Problem Most of us cannot wake up comfortably with the use of alarms
Solution A massage bed that will be triggered by an alarm clock in a mobile application making you feel refreshed when you wake up.

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