2013-14 Term 1 G2 mAjors

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 Paper prototype could have been displayed in a better manner, i.e not putting gifs side by side to confuse the user. Problems in the scenario can be in more detailed towards the reasoning for a user's actions
DateTime:

SixDotz - IS480 Project: SMU Princep Hostel - Prinsep Integrated Portal

  • Personas: depth and detailed, easy to visualize
  • Scenarios: detailed enough to understand and not too complicated
  • Flow: we like the use of multiple flow diagrams instead of combining everything into one, making it much easier to understand
  • Paper Prototype: very detailed step by step guide to show how to use the app
  • Designs: our team like the idea that various views(i.e. calendar/list) have been considered

A4. Heuristic Evaluation (End of Iteration 1)

Deliverables DateTime:
  1. Problems: Our team has made sure that there were no duplicates with regards to the problems from the Heuristic Evaluations.
  2. Solutions: Our team has also made the extra effort to come up with solutions that were better than our evaluators, wherever applicable or necessary.
DateTime:

TeamYOLO-Bill Splitter

  • Dividing into tabs: The use of different tabs (Heuristics, Evaluators, Problems) make it easier to follow and requiring less scrolls.
  • Use of charts: We like how the team used charts to show the compilation of problems. Easy to see the overview of problems.
A5. High-fidelity Prototype 1: A Skeleton and a Plan Deliverables DateTime: 19/9/2013 10.30AM
  1. Prototype: The prototype screenshots are presented clearly through the use of the prototyping tool, Pencil. It also covers our screen pages based on our flow diagram.
  2. Plan: All tasks are sufficiently detailed and split effectively. The tasks are also assigned to one person each.
  3. Changes: All changes were thoroughly considered by the entire team based on the Heuristic Evaluations. The solutions that the team has come up with are also creative, such as the new Achievements System / Map and Rewards System. Our team has also provided well-illustrated changes to the paper prototype based on our solutions, with clear before and after pictures provided.
DateTime:

Style Busters-Fashion-insta

Style Buster's scenarios are extremely detailed and well-thought out, with a number of scenarios covering different functionalities and screens. Our team also liked their prototype runnable using iBuildApp, which provides the user a way to navigate through the interface of their application.
A6. High-fidelity Prototype 2: Meat on the Bones Deliverables DateTime:
  1. Prototype: Screenshots of all views in our application have been provided, with the link to the Android APK file provided. One thing that our team could have done better was to develop better functionality for our screens such as completing the User Profile functionality (Edit Profile and Add Friend). However due to the lack of time and resources, it was not feasible.
  2. Deliverables: Different work items have been assigned to different team members. Flow diagram has been updated.
  3. Progress: Our progress have been logged and is described clearly, while matching the screenshots that were provided in the prototype tab.
DateTime:

Carpe Diem-Mobile bus charter service

The display of their prototype is extremely detailed and comprehensive, with different screenshots covering different scenarios and views of the application based on their Scenarios. Our team found that this was very well done.
A7. High-fidelity Prototype 3: Ready for Testing Deliverables DateTime:
  1. Prototype: Prototype has been significantly changed and improved from the first development with more focus on the overall look and UI.
  2. Progress: Continued to provide clear updates on the progress of our development.
DateTime:

D'PENZ-ING Bank's Procurement Workflow Management System

Our team really liked the detailed instructions on how to install their runnables. The team also provided clear links and IDs. The changes to the application and implementation plan is also well documented with before and after pictures to go along with their explanation.
A8. Laboratory Test

(End of Iteration 2)

Deliverables DateTime:
  1. Goal: Our study goals are fit the problem of creating an task application that allows us to correctly identify out problems.
  2. Tasks, Data, & Documents: Our tasks is well designed to facilitate the user for all the functions in the application as well as showing a clear result of what is to be expected for each completed action.
  3. Results: Results were collected and organized into a proper table for easy reading.
  4. Changes: Our team did well for the changes to our prototype, as we are able to provide solutions to the problems that were faced during the testing. We have also gone the extra mile to provide a prototype model to make our vision more description and clear.
  5. General: Our team has provided the appropriate captions needed for each screenshot or illustration to make it easy to read. We have also used the proper indentations in order to make the overall presentation neater and clearer.
DateTime:

Change-Makers - iCloset

Our team really liked the way they summarized their findings and data using the graph. Their prototype screenshots are also very well organized and detailed as they sort it by function, which makes it very clear to read.
A9. Web Experiment 1: Setup Deliverables Changes to Prototype Changes was ambitious, clearly targeting the users's most pressing wanted change, as well as clearly defining what needs to be done.
  • Experiment Design | Our experiment design was wide and executed effectively. Our Dependent variable is objective and took care to make sure results are clearly captured from the testers.
  • Experiment Implementation | While our Experiment walk-through is especially clear and well illustrated, our prototype wasn't integrated with external tools like GAE Bingo or Google Analytics, and we could have done better in this case.
DateTime:

1. Carpe Diem

There were a lot of changes made but even so, it was well documented, and each of the changes was clearly shown.
A10. Web Experiment 2: Analysis Deliverables Participants: 30 participants was gathered, which was more than expected amount.

Results: statistical analysis shows 95% confidence interval. This allows us to generate a clear conclusion based on that. Conclusions & Changes: changes will valid, as they were based on the class's response on being the most pressing issue to resolve. Though it we made a change and the results justifies that the change was a positive one.

DateTime:

Team Yolo

They have detailed web experiment results. In addition, the collection of their qualitative results is neat and tidy as well well having considered limitations of their results

A11. Poster Session (End of Iteration 3)

Deliverables Video: Our video clearly shows the usefulness of our application through illustrating the problem of a student unable to manage tasks and through the application completes the tasks on time. Poster: Poster uses striking colours to bring out appeal and clearly communicates solution, as well as showing the lab results and how it brings about the changes to our prototype's evolution.Prototype: Sourcecode is completed and Prototype shows significant improvement over semester as well as completing all the different scenarios with it. Reflections: Our reflections given provide constructive feedback.
DateTime:

#1, Carpe_Diem

Video explains the functions of the application clearly and their pain points and solution was well defined in the video and poster.

mAjors

TeamName mAjors
Project Name Tasky
Design Brief Change
Problem There are too many projects, assignments and meetings to handle and organize in our daily lives. Moreover, current task organizing applications such as Google Calendar also do not provide enough incentives to entice us to continue keeping track of our daily tasks and to complete them on time. Task management therefore becomes a very mundane chore.
Solution An application that would allow users to track and manage their schedules and tasks. Gamification would be introduced to the process in the form of a scoring and rewards system. This would therefore provide an incentive for the user to complete their tasks early. Ultimately, the application would change the way users think of task management by making it something to look forward to and by simulating enough interest to actively keep track of their task.

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