INFO90004 Assignment 3 - Take-Home Exam (Individual) – Semester 1, 2024

Instructions

•    This is a take-home, individual assignment. It requires approximately 30 hours of work.

•    This assignment represents 40% of your final assessment.

•    There are two questions.

•    We have shown the points value for each question and sub-question (Q1 20 points, Q2 20 points).

•    Start each question on a new page. You must clearly indicate which question you are answering at the start of the page.

•    There is a generous word limit for each question. Words more than 10% beyond the upper limit will not be assessed. Reference lists are not included in this word limit.

•    The overall word count for each question must be included at the end of the answer to each question (Q1, Q2).

•    You should answer each question in words; however, you may sketch diagrams or other

images to help clarify your point. Your answer must make sense – it’s not enough to just list some words, you need to explain what you mean.

•    You may use any reference materials to assist you in answering the questions. However, all submitted work must comply with university policy on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism

(http://academichonesty.unimelb.edu.au/). In particular, note that material generated by artificial intelligence software or large language models (in whole or in part) is not permitted and will be reported as misconduct.

•    Referenced material must be clearly cited in the body of the text. References may be listed at the end of the answer to each question or in a single list at the end of the exam paper.

•    The word count should not include the list of references or contents of figures.

•    Submit the file to Turnitin via the LMS by Tuesday 4th June 2023 at 11:59 pm, Melbourne time. (Note that this is a fixed time; we will apply penalties for late submissions). You may resubmit once, as long as it is before the deadline.

Assessment Criteria

Each question will be assessed according to the following criteria:

Relevance Is the answer relevant to the question?

Completeness Does the response answer the question fully?

Insight Does the response demonstrate critical thought and analysis?

Clarity Is the response clearly structured, well written and logical?

Breadth Does the response make appropriate use of a variety of scholarly literature?

Question 1 – 20 marks

You have been engaged to redevelop the website for Breads N Spreads, a website for people who like to eat toast. Included on the next seven pages are some reports from a Treejack study and an eyetracking study that one of your colleagues created in Optimal Workshop.

Based on the information shown in these reports, please provide the following information.

Part A – 3 marks

As far as possible, recreate the structure of the website as it was when the test was run. Is your information complete or partial?

You can present this information visually (e.g., in a diagram) or in a table or nested list. Please do not try to draw wireframes or designs of the site!

Part B – 6 marks (300-600 words)

On pages 8-9, you can see a heatmap of the wireframe diagrams that your colleague developed for the site’s homepage. The text that is not in English is placeholder text to show that there would be text here; it doesn’t mean anything.

Propose two changes to the wireframes to improve the experience of navigating the website. Justify your choices using appropriate theories from HCI.

You can draw on one or more of the diagrams or replicate them to show the issue and your proposed solution, but you should also describe and justify your recommendations in text.

Part C – 3 marks (150-300 words)

Name two pieces of information that you learned from the eye tracking data (heatmaps) that you could not learn from the Treejack study. Explain why this information was not available in Treejack.

Part D – 8 marks (400-800 words)

A junior colleague developed this research, including the site structure and the questions and tasks for each study. What is the most important advice you would give them to improve these aspects of their work in future? Justify your answer.

You should give two recommendations each for the tree structure and for the questions and tasks (study design). You do not have to rate the severity of the issue but you should clearly describe what the problem is and your recommended solution.

You can present your answer in a table or in text form.

Question 2 – 20 marks (1000-1200 words)

You are required to write a critical review of a (supplied) article reporting findings from an HCI study. Please refer to the LMS to see which article you should review. If you cannot find this information, please email Melissa immediately!

Your review should address the following questions.

a.   What is the aim of the project described in the article? (1 mark)

b.   What were its main findings? (2 marks)

c.   What user research method/s were used in the article? (2 marks)

d.   Who were the participants in the study? How were they recruited? Do you think they were the right participants for this research? (2 marks)

e.   What are the strengths and weaknesses of the method for UX practice and/or  research? What research is cited to support this method or the authors’ claims about it? (5 marks)

f.    Propose two alternate methods – one qualitative, one quantitative – that could have been taken to pursue the aims of this project or learn more about usability and user experience in this setting/of this technology (You should propose this method – it will not be in the article).

For each proposed method, identify

o the method you would use,

o the type(s) of data that would be collected,

o how it would be analysed

o how the method could contribute to understanding of the project and/or to the setting.

(8 marks)

Your review must be presented in your own words, and must critically engage with the ideas presented, and not just summarise the key points of the article. It must demonstrate some reading and analysis of scholarly literature beyond the set article.

You must make meaningful reference to at least five other HCI/UX publications from scholarly sources. Suggested sources of references are available throughout the subject  LMS. You can also consult the references that are cited in your article or that were set as readings for this subject.

You should structure your review around these key questions (by using the questions as subheadings).

A critical review is very different from a book review. For more information about how to write a critical review, see:

• https://www.monash.edu/rlo/quick-study-guides/writing-a-critical-review

• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe-writing-centre/critical-reading-and-writing/critical- review

To write a critical review, you will need to read the selected article in detail. You will also need to read other related texts. This will enable you to present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the article.

Please use the American Psychological Association (APA 7th edition) referencing style, described here:https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite

Articles for Question 2

Look at which “Exam Paper Review” group you have been assigned to, to see which article you should review. Remember that this is an individual task. The group you are in is only to show you which paper you should review.

The papers are visible on the “Exam” assignment.

Exam Paper Review Paper A.

Xing, Y., Kelly, R. M., Rogerson, M. J., Waycott, J., & Aslam, K. 2024. Designing for

Inclusive Experiences: Investigating Opportunities for Supporting Older Adults in

Community-based Social Programs. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1011, 1-20.https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641892

Exam Paper Review Paper B.

Zhao, W., Kelly, R.M., Rogerson, M.J. and Waycott, J. 2024. Older Adults Imagining

Future Technologies in Participatory Design Workshops: Supporting Continuity in the

Pursuit of Meaningful Activities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,

USA, Article 97, 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641887

Exam Paper Review Paper C.

Freeman, S.O., Gibbs, M., and Nansen, B. 2023. Personalised But Impersonal: Listeners' Experiences of Algorithmic Curation on Music Streaming Services. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 412, 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581492

Exam Paper Review Paper D.

Martinez, J.J., Froehlich, J.E., and Fogarty, J. 2024. Playing on Hard Mode: Accessibility,

Difficulty and Joy in Video Game Adoption for Gamers with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24). Association for

Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 524, 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642804

Exam Paper Review Paper E.

Quadri, G.J., Wang, A.Z., Wang, Z., Adorno, J., Rosen, P. and Szafir, D.A. 2024. Do You See What I See? A Qualitative Study Eliciting High-Level Visualization Comprehension. In

Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24).

Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 204, 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642813