Hello, if you have any need, please feel free to consult us, this is my wechat: wx91due
FIT3175 Usability - S1 2024
Submission 4 - High-Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation
(30%, Individual and Group Work)
Overview
There are three parts to this assignment:
● Part 1: design a high-fidelity prototype
● Part 2: conduct a heuristic evaluation of your prototype and;
● Part 3: discuss your evaluation and recommendations for fixes as a group
Part 1: High fidelity prototype (GROUP TASK 15%)
In this stage, you will come back together as a group to design a high-fidelity interactive prototype based on your low-fidelity prototype screens. You can share your sketches from Submission 2 and discuss their benefits and limitations. Decide on a final sketch idea derived from different requirements of the solution and design a high-fidelity interactive prototype using Figma (https://www.figma.com/).
Please be aware that Figma is the only prototyping tool that will be accepted to complete this assignment deliverable.
The Week 9 tutorial provides a brief introduction to Figma. More information on how to use Figma can be found in Figma’s help and documentation page here.
The prototype will include:
A high-fidelity interactive prototype. The number of screens will consist of 2 screens per group member (e.g. 6 screens for groups of 3, 8 screens for groups of 4, etc.), but one of the screens MUST BE the home screen (do not include a login screen - assume the user is already logged in). All team members should collaborate on all screens in Figma (ie. it should not be a case of one person doing two screens by themselves, another person doing two other screens by themselves and so on).
● The prototype should involve at least 2 different previously defined requirements (either from the assignment brief or from your user analysis submission 1) and it should be at least 2 layers/screens deep for each requirement (see diagram below).
Figure 1: Layer structure showing depth of navigation layers/screens for two different requirements.
● Make sure you think about the application of guidelines, principles and theories (any from the unit e.g. navigation and menu guidelines, visual principles, Norman’s principles, Shneiderman’s 8 Golden Rules, etc...) you have learned throughout the unit, as well as your personas, user stories and storyboards. Each screen should have one unique design guideline or principle applied (these should not include accessibility principles as those will be assessed separately).
● Your prototypes should consider at least 3 accessibility elements as part of the design, and how they comply with 3 different WCAGs (accessibility guidelines). These accessibility guidelines should be in addition to the other general design guidelines and principles.
● The prototype must be interactive. The interaction includes navigation between the screens, and the navigation within a screen through interacting with UI elements such as buttons and lists that are relevant to the chosen requirements.
● You do NOT need to include advanced scripting such as data processing or calculation.
● Each screen should reflect a close-to-final version of the user interface. Screens must include click interactions to facilitate navigation between screens.
Report:
You also need to write a report about your prototype and your design process, decisions and accessibility considerations (more details below).
Note: make sure you use images/pictures with no copyright restrictions. All images sourced online must be referenced in the report.
Part 2: Prototype Evaluation (INDIVIDUAL TASK 15%)
Is your prototype solution to the problem a success? Is it a good solution? Does it have good usability? In order to assess the usability of your design, each member of the team, independently, will perform a Heuristic Evaluation following Neilsen’s 10 heuristics model.
● For each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics, you will identify one example, which is either a compliance or a violation. You must identify at least two violations in your evaluation.
For your violations:
(a) Provide the severity rating between 1 and 4 (0 means no violation).
Remember: severity is rated by taking into account the following factors that contribute to the severity of a problem: its frequency of occurrence (common/encountered by many users or rare/encountered by only a few users); its impact on users (easy or hard to overcome), and its persistence (does it need to be overcome once or repeatedly). Though you are doing this individually so the frequency maybe difficult to determine (as you cannot survey a large number of users), you can still make assumptions about how common the problem is from previous experiences and mention this in your evaluation.
(b) Provide a recommendation that will address the problems related to the violations and significantly improve the usability of the product.
(c) Explain how the design choices involved in your prototype support the compliances you found.
Report: You also need to write your individual evaluation as part of the report (more details below).
Part 3: Evaluation Summary (GROUP TASK, included in Part 1 marks)
● After you have all done your individual heuristic evaluations, write a brief
analysis/summary of your group’s three most severe violations and recommended fixes (more details below).
Submission 3 - Deliverables
Compile your work from Submission 3 deliverables into a single document. The final document should contain:
1. High fidelity interactive prototype (group report, max 1000-1200 words for
groups of 2-3 or 1200-1700 words for groups of 4-5, excluding images. This word count also includes the group evaluation summary and overall report conclusion):
a. A link to where the team’s interactive Figma prototype can be tested online (must be viewable to anyone at Monash with the link - if the grading TA does not have access to your prototype then there will be a 5% penalty).
b. Nominate 1 design guideline/principle per screen and justify how it has been applied to your designs. These guidelines/principles should be drawn from a wide variety of the unit material. You also need to explain how 3 WCAGs have been applied across your prototype.
c. Provide at least ONE change per group member your team made to improve ideas from the Submission 2 prototypes, and explain the reason for each change and improvement based on the different principles/theories discussed in this unit. Clearly state where these changes have been made by showing the screenshots of the low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes for comparison and clearly mark these changes in both screenshots.
Note: Justifications can make use of any guidelines discussed during the semester such as guidelines for navigation, menus, graphics, colour, icons, typography, grouping and accessibility...
2. Heuristic Evaluation Results (individual report, 500-700 words max excluding
images and compliance/violation tables):
a. A summary table of compliances – a summary of compliance instances, including the heuristic rule number, and the evidence, as shown below (include annotated screenshots).
|
# |
Instance of Compliance |
Heuristic Rule |
Evidence |
Design choices justification |
|
1 |
Here you need to provide a very brief description of the instance and how it is compliant with the rule (a phrase, not a sentence) |
rule number, e.g. #3 |
Here you need to provide the figure number and its caption (e.g. Figure 1… below). You could include more than one figure details. |
Your justification of why this instance is compliant with the Heuristic Rule. |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
Table 1: A summary of compliance instances
b. A summary table for violations – a summary of heuristic violation instances, including the heuristic rule number, evidence, severity ratings, and recommendations to address the problem, in a table as shown below (include annotated screenshots).
|
# |
Instance of Violation |
Heuristic Rule |
Evidence |
Severity Rating |
Recommendation |
|
1 |
Here you need to provide a very brief description of the instance and how it violates the rules (a phrase, not a sentence). |
The rule number e.g. #3 |
Here you need to provide an annotated screenshot. You could include more than one figure details. |
A severity rating e.g. 2 |
Here you provide a very brief description of the recommendation (a phrase, not a sentence) |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: A summary of violations and recommendations
Figure 1 - example of compliance/violation …
Note: Your evaluation must address all 10 of Nielsen’s heuristics. You may have any combination of compliances and violations as long as at least 2 violations are identified. You must identify one unique example per heuristic, ie. the same example/element cannot be used for multiple heuristics.
c. A description of the violations identified and justification for the severity ratings and recommendations.
Overall report conclusion: discussing, summarising and highlighting the main points/recommendations and the key findings of evaluating your high-fidelity prototypes, ie. what your group considers to be the 3 most important/severe violations and suggest detailed recommendations on how to fix these problems moving forward.
Report Format: Title Page
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Group Work - Prototype
a. Link to Figma prototype (accessible by the grading TA)
b. Screenshots of all prototype screens
c. Description and justification of one design guideline implemented per screen
d. Description and justification of three accessibility guidelines implemented throughout the prototype
e. Description and justification of one change made per team member from the low fidelity prototype to the high fidelity prototype
3. Individual Work - Heuristic Evaluation
a. Summary tables of compliances
b. Summary tables of violations
c. Detailed description of violations and justification of severity ratings
4. Conclusion (for prototype/overall evaluation findings)
a. Mention challenges faced during design process
b. Discuss here the 3 most severe violations and recommendations for fixes
5. References (if any)
6. Appendix
a. Personas/User Stories/Low fidelity prototype screens used from previous submissions (including any explanation of modifications made, eg. based on submission 1/2 feedback)