School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics
301045 Advanced Topics in User System Interaction
Autumn 2019
Edition: Autumn 2019
Copyright c 2019 University Western Sydney trading as Western Sydney University ABN 53 014 069 881 CRICOS Provider No: 00917K No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written permission from the Dean of the School. Copyright for acknowledged materials reproduced
herein is retained by the copyright holder. All readings in this publication are copied under licence in accordance with Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968.
Unit Details

Unit Code:	301045
Unit Name:	Advanced Topics in User System Interaction
Credit Points:	10
Unit Level:	7
Assumed Knowledge:	Not Applicable

Note: Students with any problems, concerns or doubts should discuss those with the Unit Coordinator as early as they can.
Unit Coordinator
Name: Dr Mahmoud Elkhodr
Location: Parramatta ER G 19
Email: [email protected]
Consultation Arrangement:
Monday: 12:00 – 13:00
Please email for an appointment
Teaching Team
Name: Belal Alsinglawi
Email: [email protected]
Consultation Arrangement:
Tutor Parramatta
Note: The relevant Learning Guide Companion supplements this document
Contents
1 About Advanced Topics in User System Interaction 2
1.1 An Introduction to this Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 What is Expected of You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Changes to Unit as a Result of Past Student Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Assessment Information 3
2.1 Unit Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Approach to Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Contribution to Course Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Assessment Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.1 TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.2 TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.3 Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High
Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.4 Literature Review Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.6 General Submission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Teaching and Learning Activities 25
4 Learning Resources 29
4.1 Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1
1 About Advanced Topics in User System Interaction
1.1 An Introduction to this Unit
The domain of User System Interaction or also known as Human Computer Interaction (HCI) dictates that IT graduates must be able to develop and evaluate interfaces that not only look professional but are usable, functional and
accessible. This post graduate unit also examines HCI as a field of research and discusses novel areas of research in the
area. Students in this unit will be required to complete a research project alongside a literature review document both
of which comprise of content that is of a standard of being able to be considered for publication and/or presentation
in a HCI conference or journal.
1.2 What is Expected of You
Study Load
A student is expected to study an hour per credit point a week. For example a 10 credit point unit would require 10
hours of study per week. This time includes the time spent within classes during lectures, tutorials or practicals.
Attendance
Attendance is not mandatory. However, engagement in the weekly tutorial activities is encouraged as work will be
marked within each tutorial. There is a 50% threshold pass mark that must be achieved for the tutorial workbook
assessment.
Online Learning Requirements
Unit materials will be made available on the unit’s vUWS (E-Learning) site (https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/).
You are expected to consult vUWS at least twice a week, as all unit announcements will be made via vUWS. Teaching
and learning materials will be regularly updated and posted online by the teaching team.
Lectures, tutorials and practicals will be a combination of face-to-face and online delivery. Advanced lecture material
will be delivered online. Students will require access to vUWS.
Special Requirements
Essential Equipment:
Not Applicable
Legislative Pre-Requisites:
Not Applicable
1.3 Changes to Unit as a Result of Past Student Feedback
The University values student feedback in order to improve the quality of its educational programs. The feedback
provided helps us improve teaching methods and units of study. The survey results inform unit content and design,
learning guides, teaching methods, assessment processes and teaching materials.
You are welcome to provide feedback that is related to the teaching of this unit. At the end of the semester
you will be given the opportunity to complete a Student Feedback on Unit (SFU) questionnaire to assess the unit.
You may also have the opportunity to complete a Student Feedback on Teaching (SFT) questionnaire to provide
feedback for individual teaching staff.
As a result of student feedback, the following changes and improvements to this unit have recently been made:
– Increasing face to face lectures to 5 (W1, W3, W6, W10, W12)
– Addition of threshold and justification for assessment items 1 and 2
2
2 Assessment Information
2.1 Unit Learning Outcomes

Outcome
1	Apply cognitive and user models to the design of application user interfaces.
2	Describe ways in which users’ characteristics (i.e., age, education, cultural differences, disability etc.) require adaptation of a user interface to increase effectiveness.
3	Integrate appropriate user-centred design methodologies into the development of an application, website or emerging technology (such as mobile and wearable devices)
4	Describe and use the major usability guidelines and standards.
5	Develop low-fidelity prototypes, and high-fidelity prototypes.
6	Develop user interfaces for domain specific applications.
7	Create an appropriate user evaluation plan with carefully chosen subjective and objective measures.
8	Discuss state of the art research issues and novel interaction technologies under the umbrella of HCI by means of presenting discourse through a literature review paper.

2.2 Approach to Learning
This unit supports the followings three learning activities:
1- Lecture: Both face to face and online lectures and the reading materials will revolve around the theoretical
and research aspects of Human-Computer Interaction. State of the art and advanced concepts will be dealt with in
the lectures.
2- Practicals: The practicals during the semester are scheduled on a weekly basis (students are encouraged to
attend all practicals). The practicals will build on the knowledge learned in the lectures as well as devoting effort to
the project development in close consultation with the tutor.
3- vUWS: Various supplementary materials will be provided on vUWS including reading material, video snippets,
assessment templates, exemplars, FAQ’s, etc. All these materials will be made available in a learning planner module.
3
2.3 Contribution to Course Learning Outcomes
3700: Graduate Diploma in Information and Communications Technology
Course Learning Outcomes ULO 1 ULO 2 ULO 3 ULO 4 ULO 5 ULO 6 ULO 7 ULO 8

1. Develop an advanced understanding of core concepts related to ICT body of knowledge, including established theories and recent developments with an understanding of the both local and international perspectives.	Developed	Assured	Developed	Developed	Developed	Developed
2. Identify, analyse and communicate problems and issues related to ICT and articulate appropriate solutions in order to respond to stakeholder needs and goals, within the framework of professional and ethical practice.	Assured	Developed	Assured
3. Demonstrate a high level of personal autonomy and accountability in acquisition and application of knowledge and skills.	Developed	Developed

3701: Graduate Certificate in Information and Communications Technology
Course Learning Outcomes ULO 1 ULO 2 ULO 3 ULO 4 ULO 5 ULO 6 ULO 7 ULO 8

1. Demonstrate knowledge of core concepts related to ICT, including established theories and recent developments, with an understanding of the both local and international perspectives.	Developed	Assured	Developed	Developed	Developed	Developed
2. Identify, analyse and communicate problems related to ICT, and respond to stakeholder needs and goals, within the framework of professional and ethical practice.	Assured	Developed	Assured

4
3699: Master of Information and Communications Technology
Course Learning Outcomes ULO 1 ULO 2 ULO 3 ULO 4 ULO 5 ULO 6 ULO 7 ULO 8

1. Demonstrate an advanced understanding of core and specialised concepts related to ICT body of knowledge, including established theories and recent developments with an understanding of the both local and international perspectives.	Developed	Assured	Developed	Developed	Developed	Developed
2. Identify and analyse problems and issues related to ICT and articulate appropriate solutions and justify propositions in order to respond to stakeholder needs and goals, within the framework of professional and ethical practice.	Assured	Developed	Assured
3. Demonstrate a high level of personal autonomy and accountability, in acquisition and application of knowledge and skills and in problem solving in professional context.	Developed	Developed
4. Apply enquiry-based learning, investigate and synthesise complex ideas and concepts, and develop ways of learning by exploring new knowledge within ICT discipline.	Developed	Assured	Developed	Developed	Developed
5. Develop skills in scholarly research and communicate complex ideas in a variety of formats to diverse audiences.	Assured	Assured

5
3702: Master of Information and Communications Technology (Research)
Course Learning Outcomes ULO 1 ULO 2 ULO 3 ULO 4 ULO 5 ULO 6 ULO 7 ULO 8

1. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of core concepts related to the ICT body of knowledge, including established theories, professional ethics and recent developments with an understanding of both local and international perspectives.	Developed	Developed
2. Develop advanced knowledge for identifying and analysing research problems and acquisition and application of research methods and techniques related to ICT.	Assured	Developed
3. Demonstrate cognitive, creative and technical skills to generate and evaluate complex concepts at an abstract level for problem solving in a research context.	Developed
4. Analyse, investigate and synthesise complex ideas and concepts, and develop ways of learning in exploring new knowledge within the ICT discipline.	Developed	Developed	Assured	Assured
5. Evaluate contemporary literature, and create a high-level plan for conducting original research in the ICT field and communicate complex ideas and research results in a variety of formats to diverse audiences.	Developed	Developed	Assured
6. Design, execute and evaluate a substantial research-based project in the ICT field with a high level of personal autonomy and accountability.	Developed	Assured

6
3698: Master of Information and Communications Technology (Advanced)
Course Learning Outcomes ULO 1 ULO 2 ULO 3 ULO 4 ULO 5 ULO 6 ULO 7 ULO 8

1. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of core concepts related to ICT body of knowledge, including established theories and recent developments with an understanding of the both local and international perspectives.	Developed	Assured
2. Further develop knowledge and skills in specialised areas that are closely applicable to ICT profession.	Developed	Developed	Assured	Assured	Developed
3. Identify and analyse problems and issues related to ICT and articulate appropriate solutions and justify propositions in order to respond to stakeholder needs and goals, within the framework of professional and ethical practice.	Developed	Developed
4. Demonstrate a high level of personal autonomy and accountability in acquisition and application of knowledge and skills and in problem solving in professional context.	Developed	Developed	Developed
5. Apply enquiry-based learning, investigate and synthesise complex ideas and concepts, and develop ways of learning in exploring new knowledge within ICT discipline.	Developed	Assured
6. Develop skills in scholarly research, critically evaluate contemporary literatures in ICT field and communicate complex ideas in a variety of formats to diverse audiences.	Assured	Developed	Developed	Assured

7
2.4 Assessment Summary
The assessment items in this unit are designed to enable you to demonstrate that you have achieved the unit learning
outcomes. Completion and submission of all assessment items which have been designated as mandatory or compulsory is essential to receive a passing grade.
To pass this unit you must:
-Submit Assessment Research Project A and Literature Review report
-Receive 50% or more on the marked weekly tutorial activities.
-Receive 50% or more in sub-component assessments of Research Project A: Assessment 2B, 2C.
-And lastly by default an overall 50% mark in the unit.

Item	Weight	Due Date	ULOs Assessed	Threshold
TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS)	10%	To be marked at the end of the weekly class by your tutor	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	Yes
TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)	20%	See details for individual sub tasks	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	Yes
Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%)	50%	See details for individual sub tasks	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	Yes
Literature Review Report	20%	Sunday midnight May 19 on Turnitin	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8	No

Feedback on Assessment
Feedback is an important part of the learning process that can improve your progress towards achieving the learning
outcomes. Feedback is any written or spoken response made in relation to academic work such as an assessment
task, a performance or product. It can be given to you by a teacher, an external assessor or student peer, and may
be given individually or to a group of students. As a Western Sydney University student, it is your responsibility to
seek out and act on feedback that is provided to you as a resource to further your learning.
In this unit you can expect written feedback within 2 weeks of any assessment submission. Please contact your
respective tutor to discuss feedback attained.
8
2.5 Assessment Details
2.5.1 TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS)

Weight:	10%
Type of Collaboration:	Individual
Due:	To be marked at the end of the weekly class by your tutor
Submission:	In Class
Format:	Answers will be maintained in an online journal or word document.
Length:	In-class basic tutorial questions to be completed in a log book during the tutorial session. Number of questions will usually range from 3 – 5
Curriculum Mode:	Log/Workbook
Threshold Detail:	In order to pass this assessment students must score 50% or higher in the ”in class” component of tutorial workbook exercises.

Several practical activities (usually 3 to 5) will be provided in class as print outs. Students are requested to complete
these activities to the best of their ability and as far as they can complete in the 2 hour session. Any incomplete
exercises can be completed at home and submitted as part of the tutorial workbook homework component.
Answers should be maintained in an online journal/workbook (for e.g. a simple A4 – word document, Online Portfolio,
etc). Before the end of the class, it is your responsibility to approach your respective tutor so that your attempts may
be marked off. The tutor will maintain an online record of your practicals marks; however you may not be informed
of your marks on a weekly basis due to administrative reasons. In general; if you attend the classes on a regular basis
and complete the exercises diligently you can expect to do well in this assessment. The teaching team is aware that
not all students will be able to finish their exercises in class which is why a supplementary/second marked homework
component to the Tutorial workbook is provided as a subsequent attachment to the tutorial workbook assessment.
This particular component is simply to ensure that students engage with the provided content in the tutorials.
Important Note: We have three public holidays in the semester (April 19, 22 and 25). Tutorials will not be held on
those days. Tutorials will be held as normal on all other days and if you miss a tutorial due to your class falling on one
of those public holidays please complete the work as you would normally by referring to the uploaded handouts for
that week on vUWS. The work completed in this fashion will simply be submitted as part of the tutorial homework
component but obviously would not be marked in class. Tutors will take into account the total number of face to
face classes scheduled while compiling the marks for this component.
The following guidelines will be used to mark the weekly exercises:
1. Marking for each individual tutorial exercise will be based on: Relevance, Discussion and Clarity/Effort. See
marking criteria table for details. All marked tutorials (9 or 10 in number) will contribute equally to the final 10%
mark (There will be no graded tutorial exercises in Week 13 and 14 due to final presentations). The tutors will also
mark/evaluate the effort of the student and appropriate marks will be deducted for non academic activities during
tutorial classes (social media, recreational multimedia, non academic discussions etc).
To summarise, if your class falls on either of the three public holidays:
-Friday and Monday Easter Holiday (April 19 and 22), or
-Anzac Holiday Wednesday (April 25), then You will be marked on the basis of 9 face to face tutorials. Classes held on
Wednesday will have 10 face to face marked tutorials. Remember the last two weeks are dedicated for presentations.
2. If a student misses a tutorial due to special consideration, he/she should proceed with applying a special consideration application as per the WSU special consideration policy. Missing a tutorial without just cause will result in
nil marks being awarded for that class.
3. Tutorials will be marked at the end of the class by your tutor. No late submissions will be accepted or marked,
unless with an appropriate special consideration application.
Exemplar:
9
Marking Criteria:

Criteria	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Unsatisfactory
Discussion (15%)	For each answer, makes an original case in own voice, well supported by re sources/references going beyond the mainstream literature AND by presenting reflective, analytical and logical arguments.	The student backed up the answers with some literature as well.	Relevant points presented, lists both pros and cons, but has difficulty in making a case or presenting a strong argument beyond general information or without the use of literature.	The student attempted the tutorials questions with lack of depth and knowledge. The answers were mostly very brief and not reflective or analytical	Any reasoning, analysis or self-reflection is completely missing.
Relevance (15%)	All aspects of the intended question are addressed AND all answers are relevant.	Some aspects (1-3) are left unaddressed overall but whatever is answered is mostly correct.	Either some parts of the requested question are left unaddressed or some of the answers are irrelevant.	Only half of the tutorial exercises are completed.	A signicant portion of the requested answers are left unaddressed such that the student has completely missed the point of the question.
Clarity/Presentation (70%)	The given answer is outstanding both from a written and visual perspective; i.e. appropriate details are provided, language is clear and where appropriate images are included. Furthermore the student is dedicated towards learning and investing effort in the tutorial activities.	The student showed interest and commitment in learning the materials and attempting to answer the tutorial questions with the bare minimum information and did not seek further information beyond what was provided.	While in summary the presentation is acceptable, some aspects are left untreated such that either little or no textual/visual information is provided. In addition it is noticed that the student is at times not fully concentrated on the required tutorial activities at all times.	The student is sometimes distracted with non-academic activities. Did not attempt all the tutorial exercises. A signicant portion of the requested answers are left unaddressed such that the student has completely missed the point of the question.	No attempts have been made to organise the answer to give a clear message OR some cut and pasted information is provided without any flow or referencing. In addition, it is noticed that the student is working on non-academic activities (such as personal Facebook etc) while in the tutorial class.

10
2.5.2 TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)

Weight:	20%
Type of Collaboration:	Individual
Due:	See details for individual sub tasks
Submission:	Online Submission on vUWS
Format:	Submission format for First Deliverable: PDF (Week 7 Deadline) Submission format for Second Deliverable: ZIP (Week 12 Deadline)
Length:	In extension to class work, students will be given weekly exercises that they must be complete at home and submit at two points in the semester W7 and W12
Curriculum Mode:	Log/Workbook
Threshold Detail:	In order to pass this assessment students must score 50% or higher in the ”homework” component of tutorial workbook exercises.

Via this tutorial workbook assessment homework component students will be given 1-2 short exercises on a weekly
basis that they are requested to complete at home and submit online. These exercises will directly relate to either
the activities done in the tutorials or to the project assessment. It is expected that the 1-2 homework exercises will
be provided at the end of the corresponding week.
In addition to the 1-2 homework exercises, the students will be required to (re)submit tutorial exercises attempted
in class in a nice, neat and compiled fashion. It is understandable that students are unable to complete the tutorial
activities in class, therefore this assessment provides them with an opportunity to carefully complete any pending
work. Therefore to summarise, it is expected that students submit all exercises provided as one submission (those
given in class and those uploaded online as homework will be appended together).
The two deadlines in the semester to submit the tutorial activities as an online submission are:
1) Week 7, April 21, 11:59 PM. Submit all tutorial activities (in class + homework) associated from Week 2,3,4,5,6
as one PDF file (Clearly demarcate the exercises as to which week they refer to)
2) Week 12, May 26, 11:59 PM. Submit all tutorial activities (in class + homework) associated from Week 7,8,10,11,12
as one ZIP file (Clearly demarcate the exercises as to which week they refer to) – due to the deadline, we anticipate
that no homework exercises will be provided in Week 12.
The reason for requesting submission as a ZIP file is that work done in the second half of semester will be primarily related to software wireframing so students will be requested to submit their tutorial work as a compressed
folder (such that the software files are exported to HTML files). Further submission details will be provided closer to
the deadline.
Exemplar:
Marking Criteria:
11

Criteria	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Unsatisfactory
Discussion (50%)	For each answer, makes an original case in own voice, well supported by re sources/references going beyond the mainstream literature AND by presenting reflective, analytical and logical arguments.	The student backed up the answers with some literature as well.	Relevant points presented, lists both pros and cons, but has difficulty in making a case or presenting a strong argument beyond general information or without the use of literature.	The student attempted the tutorials questions with lack of depth and knowledge. The answers were mostly very brief and not reflective or analytical	Any reasoning, analysis or self-reflection is completely missing.
Relevance (30%)	All aspects of the intended question are addressed AND all answers are relevant.	Some aspects (1-3) are left unaddressed overall but whatever is answered is mostly correct.	Either some parts of the requested question are left unaddressed or some of the answers are irrelevant.	Only half of the tutorial exercises are completed.	A signicant portion of the requested answers are left unaddressed such that the student has completely missed the point of the question.
Clarity/Presentation (20%)	The given answer is outstanding both from a written and visual perspective; i.e. appropriate details are provided, language is clear and where appropriate images are included.	The student showed interest and commitment in learning the materials and made a concerned effort to add a visual element to the presentation of the tutorial workbook.	While in summary the presentation is acceptable, some aspects are left untreated such that either little or no textual/visual information is provided.	Did not attempt all the tutorial exercises. A significant portion of the requested answers are left unaddressed such that the student has completely missed the point of the question.	No attempts have been made to organise the answer to give a clear message OR some cut and pasted information is provided without any flow or referencing.

12
2.5.3 Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High Fidelity
Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%)

Weight:	50%
Type of Collaboration:	Individual
Due:	See details for individual sub tasks
Submission:	See details for individual sub tasks
Format:	To design an interactive solution for a chosen problem area (where currently inefficacies or inadequacies exist), such that the interactive solution must be either a mobile app OR a tablet app OR a website.
Length:	Part A – 750 words Part B – 1200 words Part C – 10 minutes presentation
Curriculum Mode:	Applied Project
Threshold Detail:	In order to pass the unit the students must submit sub-assessments 3A, 3B and 3C. In addition, they must score 50% or higher in 3B and 50% or higher in 3C.

General Project Instructions
The goal of this individual project based activity is to provide you with hands-on experience of completing all
the phases of a HCI Project (where a HCI project is defined as an interactive solution through which a computer
or a machine and a user interact). These include: idea generation, conceptualisation, design, implementation and
evaluation.
The HCI Project (components) is divided into 3 assessments:
– 3A Project Brief worth 10%,
– 3B Low Fidelity Prototype Report worth 15%
– 3C High Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation worth 25%.
The goal of the project as a whole is as follows:
To design an interactive solution for a chosen problem area (where currently inefficacies or inadequacies exist),
such that the interactive solution must be either a mobile app OR a tablet app OR a website.
Initially you will choose a topic for the project and work on that throughout the semester for all the assessments. The
final goal of the project is to present a proof of concept hi-fidelity interactive prototype; which may be non-functional
in the true sense and ideally comprising of a series of software wireframes. Ensure that your choice of topic is not too
minimalistic in nature as for the assessments you will require at least three features/scenarios; where a scenario will
be defined as the point of when a user initiates an action to the point when the user is (un)successful in completing
the action.
Choosing your topic
At the start of the semester you will have to choose a topic.
You will have some freedom in choosing the problem area of your topic. It could be related to your daily life
at home, work, university, etc. You may decide to address the research problem by improving the current interactive
solution that is in place or coming up with a completely new solution.
Example Topics
Here are some sample topics to guide you accordingly:
1.An Fun and Stimulating Educational Interface to teach English for Young Children whose first language is not
English
2.A 3D visualisation tool to simulate buying furniture at IKEA
3.A single student app that integrates all student apps in one
4.A mobile app that translates teenage slang in received messages and emails for the elderly
5.An Interface that tracks energy usage at the home and provides alerts, suggestions
6.An Interface that tracks the medicine intake of patients at home
After you have selected your topic you will further research on the idea and proceed with developing both low and
hi-fidelity prototypes for your intended system.
The three assessments that together form the HCI project are now described in detail hereunder.
Assessment 3A: Project Brief
Relevant Details
13

Weighting	10%
Submission	Online via Turn It In- (Email submissions will be discarded). A cover sheet is not mandatory.
Format	Approx 1200 Words in the SIGCHI Conference Format/Template
Type	Individual
Deadline	Sunday March 31 Midnight on Turnitin

Instructions
The goal of this project brief report is to present your topic, the rationale and motivation of choosing your topic and
to relate its importance with relevant HCI literature. You will also need to benchmark your proposed idea/concept
by comparing it against 3 existing commercial applications that are similar. The main purpose of this assessment
is to provide feedback to you on your chosen topic so that you may address any concerns for the remaining two
assessments. You are strongly recommended to use this feedback to keep the project on track and improve your
subsequent submission of other assessments in the unit.
The project brief report must be written and formatted using the SIGCHI conference template (which will be provided
on vUWS). You must follow the SIGCHI template completely and meticulously. Therefore, all formatting must be
according to the template. The best way to manage that would be to replace the text in the template with your
own text. After you have written all your content, remove text that is leftover from the template. The content (not
formatting!) of the headings, subheadings are somewhat your choice and the suggested headings below are a good
starting point.
The required length of the report is approximately 1200 words; excluding the bibliography section. There is no
threshold associated with this first assessment.
The following subsections/subheadings must be included in the project brief report:
1.Introduction and Motivation: introducing your topic and problem; providing a context for your topic/problem;
justifying the choice of the topic/problem and highlighting the importance of the topic/problem.
2.Literature Review or also known as Related Work Section: Linking your chosen topic and its importance by showcasing what other HCI researchers have done in similar areas and if any gaps exist. A minimum of three relevant
academic articles must be cited. A sample literature review document will be provided which will clarify tips and
techniques on how to approach a literature review (such as starting from the general themes and drilling down to
the specifics). In this assessment the literature review can be about three short paragraphs (approximately 300-500
words).
3. Benchmark Design: Benchmark your proposed idea/concept by comparing it against 3 existing applications that
are similar (either iOS or Android). Clearly state at least one issue with each of the existing apps (conceptual or
interface/UI related). Give more details than hard for user to navigate, etc.”. Discuss pros and cons and how your
idea advances the app, web or system market in comparison to the existing 3 applications.
4.Design Statement: One line design statement describing what you will attempt to do.
5.Personas: Present two personas (i.e. major stakeholders) of your interactive solution. You can present the two
personas as text or visually or in a tabular format.
6.Conclusion and Future Work: A short paragraph on the way forward.
7.Bibliography: listing all references using the Harvard referencing style. Further instructions on how to use this
style can be found at: http://library.westernsydney.edu.au/main/sites/default/files/pdf/cite Harvard.pdf
Resources Provided
1. Relevant Literature will be provided; including state of the art and pioneering articles from the HCI/CHI domain area
2. Sample Document on how to conduct a literature review
3. Exemplars of concise literature review
4. End Note style details: we will discuss End Note in the lectures/tutorials
Marking Criteria

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Novelty of the Idea/ Design Statement20%	The idea presented is completely novel and with the aid of analysing related literature it is clearly evident that such a gap exists in HCI research.	The idea makes some major contributions to existing design but it is not completely novel OR the idea was not properly researched	Variants of the idea can be seen to exist in HCI literature or commercial applications. The student has made some minor contributions to existing design.	Very little attempt is made to improve/add to existing designs. It only makes very little contribution. Design statement is missing or requires major improvements	The approach taken to solve the problem domain and the idea itself has been implemented several times by other developers or researchers. Design statement is missing or very poor.

14

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Practicability and Motivation of the idea 20%	The motivation and rationale for choosing the topic is clearly articulated; backed up by references, statistics, figures, data and even personal experiences.	Some parts of the project is linked to the literature and backed up by references and graphical texts. However, it requires some minor improvements to be made more practical. The rationale can also be improved	The topic idea is loosely motivated; i.e. by linking with personal experiences but not literature or vice versa. Some aspect of the idea can be made practical. and/or The idea makes unrealistic assumptions	Only part of the idea is practical. It requires significant improvements. The rationale for choosing the topic is missing or unclear	The motivation for the chosen topic is completely unaddressed.
Related Work/Literature Review/Benchmark Design 40%	A wide range of recent and state of theart references (more than three) are discussed and analysed and not just paraphrased. Clear links are presented with chosen topic and gaps in previous work are identified. Range of references chosen are recent and emergent from authentic HCI sources. The proposed application is well benchmarked and compared against three existing applications.	A wide range of recent and state of art references (at least three) are discussed and analysed and not just paraphrased. The benchmark design and the range of references chosen can be improved i.e. using more recent references or citing references from journal papers.	A decent range of references and benchmark are presented with some links to chosen topic but information is mostly paraphrased and own reflections and analysis is missing.	At least two academic references are presented and two existing applications were benchmarked. The student has mostly copied and pasted the information from the references OR the choice of references requires some major improvements in terms of relevance	Students have merely copy pasted information from the chosen references OR the choice of references is completely invalid in terms of relevance or authenticity. The proposed application was not benchmarked against existing applications or it is invalid in terms of relevance.
Personas/ Conclusion 5%	The choice of personas is well thought out and the range of stakeholders is directly linked to the motivation of the topic OR the choice of personas reflects the diversity in the range of users.	Two personas are presented and are of good choice but the motivation is not clear or can be improved	The two personas presented while relevant are very similar OR personas description does not convey the message.	Only one personasis found. Only one of the presented personas is valid. The other one is missing or requires major improvements	The personas are completely irrelevant to the nature of the topic chosen.
Clarity and Presentation in the Report 15%	The report is outstanding both from a written and visual perspective; Referencing follows the stated norms and conventions; language (grammatical and otherwise) is clear and where appropriate images are included.	Presentation and format are good. there are minor issues that can be fixed and/or improved i.e. image captions, consistency in paragraph spacing and the like	While in summary the presentation is acceptable, some aspects are left untreated such that either little or no textual/visual information is provided OR the text is compromised by language and grammar errors.	Some attempt are made to use the provided template but there are numerous issues with formatting, style, language use and grammar errors	Students have not made any attempt to organise the report to give a clear message OR some cut and pasted information is provided without any flow or referencing.

Assessment 3B: Low-Fidelity (Design Concept) Report
Relevant Details

Weighting	15%
Submission	Online on Turnitin (Please do not email your submissions). A cover sheet is not mandatory.
Format	Approx 1250 Words in the SIGCHI Conference Format/Template (excluding appendix)
Type	Individual
Deadline	Sunday April 28 midnight on Turnitin

Instructions
In this report you will present your initial design ideas of how the interface that addresses your chosen topic should
look like and behave using paper wireframes only. Please use the templates for paper wireframes as provided on
vUWS and as discussed in the lecture and tutorials. All paper wireframes must be hand sketched and annotated
extensively; use of software is not allowed to enhance the sketches.
The low-fidelity prototype report must be written and formatted using the SIGCHI conference template (which will
be provided on vUWS). You must follow the SIGCHI template completely and meticulously. Therefore, all formatting
must be according to the template. The best way to manage that would be to replace the text in the template with
your own text. After you have written all your content, remove text that is leftover from the template. The content
(not formatting!) of the headings, subheadings are somewhat your choice and the suggested headings below are a
good starting point.
15
The required length of the report is approximately 1250 words; excluding the bibliography section. The wireframes
can be included in the appendix. Please scan the paper wireframes and then insert into the report; do not take a
picture with your smart phone camera as that will reduce the quality of the image when inserted in the document!
A threshold pass mark of 50% is associated with this assessment.
The following subsections must be included in the low-fidelity prototype report:
1. Introduction: Brief recap of your chosen topic and its motivation.
2. Scenario Description: Clearly highlight and then briefly describe 3 interaction scenarios within your chosen topic.
As stated prior, a scenario will typically be one feature of your system. Showcase the scenario description by employing
one of the following techniques: use cases, storyboards or task analysis. Feel free to use any one of the 3 but not
more than one mentioned visual techniques to represent each of the scenarios. So for example Scenario 1 can be
represented by Task Analysis, Scenario 2 by storyboards, Scenario 3 by Use cases OR Scenario 1 can be represented
by Task Analysis, Scenario 2 by Task Analysis, Scenario 3 also by Task Analysis and so on any combination thereof.
Also each scenario must be explained through text and through one visual technique as mentioned above.
3. Design Conceptualisation: For each of the 3 scenarios present your paper wireframes (each scenario can be a
subheading for the sake of readability and clarity). Also clearly indicate any user actions that result in traversing the
wireframes and describe the layout and design of the interface. Some of the wireframes will be identical (such as the
home page or home screen); feel free to include them once in the report and refer to them from thereon in. In this
section, feel free to include any wireframes/design choices that were rejected. Indicate why! Moreover, briefly state
what process or method (i.e. brainstorming, research, iterative etc..) you followed to come up with the design ideas
before you begin to talk about the ideas in detail. IMPORTANT: It is mandatory at the end to include at least 10
unique wireframes in total across the 3 scenarios (not each) to attain a higher mark. Each screenshot counts as 1
wireframe. So some templates which have three iPhones across them will count as 3 wireframes. Please stick to one
platform (web or mobile or tablet); depictions of multi platform screenshots of the same scenarios will not satisfy the
10 wireframe benchmark. Please note that it is not just the quantity of wireframes but also their quality that the
marking criteria will focus on.
4. Design Rationale: Briefly analyse your design choices and highlight the rationale of them by linking them to
prior HCI literature or design guidelines/conventions as discussed in the lectures. Clearly add references to any such
linkage. Random choices of design decisions without rationale will be penalized. Feel free to refer/cite to the content
discussed in the lectures/video snippets. In the first instance, can you please attempt to find the original source of
the guideline (Normans books, HCI book by Alan Dix, etc). If you are unable to pinpoint the exact reference, you
can refer to thelecture slides using the following category from Endnotes: ”Personal Communication”. See Lecture
(unpublished)/Personal Communication category on Page 12 in the UWS Harvard Style Sheet (for those who are
not using Endnotes). In the Design Rationale section, you are encouraged to cite and go beyond articles that will
beuploaded on vUWS and information in the lectures. Remember to look for domain-specific articles.
5. Conclusion and Future Work: A short paragraph on how you see the prospect of designing software based wireframes for your topic.
6. Bibliography: listing all references using the Harvard referencing style. Further instructions on how to use this
style can be found at: http://library.westernsydney.edu.au/main/sites/default/files/pdf/cite Harvard.pdf
Resources Provided
1. Sample paper wireframes will be provided on vUWS and discussed in lectures and tutorials
2. Sample text/writeup of scenario description, design conceptualisation and design rationale
Marking Criteria

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Scenario Description 15%	A minimum of three distinct scenarios are presented and clearly explained by means of an accurate representation of one of the scenario description techniques. Scenarios presented are detailed and involve several interaction steps.	At least two out of the three presented scenarios are properly explained by means of one of the scenario description Techniques. At least one scenario or all, overall, the scenarios requires some minor improvements i.e. more interactions steps.	The Scenarios are described in some detail but the representations are lacking in correctness or are too abstract OR vice versa.	Only two scenarios presented or not all 3 presented scenarios are correct AND/OR their representations are too abstract	Scenario description is inadequate, representations in accurate and in general scenarios depicted are low-level such as Login/Register User.

16

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Scenario Design 50%	A minimum of 10 unique interaction wireframes are presented across the chosen three scenarios AND Details in interaction design are clearly articulated and visually implied AND chosen design ideas are related to rejected design ideas AND templates utilised are as required AND the look and feel of the interfaces/wireframes is consistent (i.e. usage of logos, colour schemes, size of windows/buttons/forms AND annotations are added upon the wireframes indicating user interactions AND the general quality of sketching and design is exemplary. It is expected that the uniqueness of the wireframes extends to the interaction tech niques/styles/design choices and not just simply the content.	) A minimum of 10 unique interaction wireframes are presented across the chosen three scenarios AND Details in interaction design are clearly articulated and visually implied. However, some wireframes require some minor improvement for example: the chosen design ideas were not related to rejected design ideas or the general quality of sketching and design is not exemplary or enough	The number of unique interaction wireframes is less than 10 but more than 5 OR (The number of unique wireframes are 10 or more in number but details in interaction design are scattered inconsistently AND minor attempts have been made to render some consistency to the drawings AND interaction/design choices are not justified or self explanatory).	Only the bare minimum of 5 wireframes are presented OR the number of wireframes are more than 5 but there is serious deficiency in their quality	The requirement of at least 5 unique wireframes and three scenarios is not fulfilled and the general quality of the interaction details is poor, rough, not neat and unsatisfactory.
Design Rationale/ Conclusion 20%	A wide range of recent and state of art references are associated with design choices. Linkages are also established via interaction design guidelines, conventions and norms.	A wide range of recent and state of art references are associated with design choices. Overall this section requires some minor improvements i.e. HCI design guidelines should have been referred when discussing design choices.	Some but not all design choices are backed up with known methodologies and conventions or References are just being used as text filler.	Most if not all design choices have been randomly arrived upon.	This section is missing.
Clarity and Presentation in Report 15%	The report is outstanding both from a written and visual perspective; Referencing follows the stated norms and conventions; language (grammatical and otherwise) is clear and where appropriate images are included.	The report is very good both from a written and visual perspective; referencing follows the stated norms and conventions; requires only some minor improvement	The template is followed, wireframes are clear and well captioned. However, the overall presentation of the report requires improvement e.g. inconsistent font family/size, text alignment etc.	While in summary the presentation is acceptable, some aspects are left untreated such that either little or no textual/visual information is provided OR the text is compromised by language and grammar errors.	No attempts have been madeto organise the report to give a clear message OR some cut and pasted information is provided without any flow or referencing.

Assessment 3C: High-Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation
Relevant Details

Weighting	25%
Submission	Online on vUWS and Presented in class (Presentation Schedule TBA). A cover sheet is not mandatory.
Format	10 minutes presentation
Type	Individual
Deadline	Sunday May 26 midnight on vUWS; presented in your tutorial in Week 13 or 14 as scheduled by your tutor

17
Instructions
This assessment comprises of two integral parts submitted as an oral presentation. Firstly; you must deliver a
demo of the front end; i.e. therefore without necessarily a back-end of your hi-fidelity prototype and secondly; you
must deliver an evaluation plan of how you would conduct an evaluation of your prototype given you had the right
resources, i.e. time and ethics clearances. You have freedom in choosing the software/tool for your prototype but all
choices must be clearly articulated, introduced explained and justified in the presentation. Similarly you must also justify your evaluation plan, its structure, data collection instruments employed, methods chosen, choice of participants,
etc. The range of software tools that can be employed for building the hi-fidelity prototype include any wireframing
software as discussed in the lectures or tutorials (Visio, Balsamiq, Just in Mind Pro, etc) or HTML 5/Phone Gap.
Please discuss your options of particular tools with your tutor in advance to get a formal approval. However Just in
mind will be the most discussed and encouraged software of choice. Please note that the professional version of Just
in mind comes with a 30 day free license period. SCEM computers will have the Just in mind professional version
pre-installed.
The presentation files are due for submission online on vUWS on or before midnight of Sunday May 26. You will be
informed regarding the exact submission instructions with regards to your project files (exporting to a friendly format
will be preferred).
Your tutor will inform you at the start of the semester of your allocated date and time for the presentation in Week
13 or 14.
The presentation must be delivered strictly within the time limit of 10 minutes.
A threshold pass mark of 50% is associated with this assessment.
The following slides structure is encouraged to be adopted for your presentation:
1. Slide 1: Title, your Name
2. Slide 2: Design statement and any changes to your scope/project idea
3. Slide 3-6: Implementation Details followed by Live Demo. Initially, you must devote some time in the presentation to motivate the choice of tools utilised (describe the tools and its features as well!) and the process
to create your prototype. Your prototype will be evaluated as a front end application, i.e. on the aesthetics,
the possibilities of user interaction, ease of use, usability, consistency, and all other similar HCI and interface
design principles as discussed in the lectures. Feel free to remind the audience of the rationale of any design
decision. After discussing all the details of the prototype you will be required to demo it by running the application/website/interface. Your prototype demo can be run as:1) externally from powerpoint, so minimise
Powerpoint and open the wireframing software (just in mind, etc) and run the demo or as a video using any
screen capture software.Therefore, the demo is ”separate” from the Slides.The demo must traverse through
and showcase the 3 scenarios as discussed in the Assessment 2B. Ensure that all technical issues are taken care
of prior to the beginning of the presentation by executing a dummy run on the presentation machine.
4. Slide 7-9: Evaluation In this section of the presentation you will be expected to clearly outline your evaluation
plan. Please spend some time thinking on how you wish to prepare for the evaluation and what the protocol
would be. For example you need to think about the choice of the evaluation method, the choice of the
evaluation instrument (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups), the tasks that the users are required to do
(how many tasks, how do you measure task success-when a particular screen is seen or message is generated?),
the exact protocol of the evaluation (welcome, introduction, exploration phase-i.e. playing around with the
system, evaluation phase, filling in the questionnaire, etc), etc. In most cases your evaluation instrument
(questionnaire, etc) will be quite elaborate therefore only summarise the main and key elements from it, do
not paste the whole questionnaire on your slides. In addition, try to formulate what the goal of the evaluation
is in your opinion, is it only to get feedback or to measure other aspects such as efficiency and usability. You
might also want to think about comparing your system/product/interface against other similar off the shelf
products/interfaces/systems and determine how well it is rated in comparison.
5. Slide 10: Limitations of your design concept/interface/Conclusion
Please note that the professional version of Just in mind comes with a 30 day free license period. SCEM computers will have the Just in mind professional version pre-installed. Also, Just in mind has a version conflict, best is to
verify which version is installed in SCEM labs and install the identical same version on your laptops. Do this in Week 9.
Marking Criteria
18

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Hi-fi Prototype 60%	The student presents an exemplary front end of a prototype that is demonstrated with utmost clarity; follows all discussed HCI principles and guidelines; showcases novelty; choice of software tool is comprehensively discussed and justified; thedemonstration showcases three scenarios as indicated earlier and design is aesthetic and professional.	Three scenario are presented. The student presents an exemplar y front end of a prototype that is demoed with good clarity; follows some of the discussed HCI principles and guidelines. Only minor improvement are required, such as justifications are missing	Demo did not show three scenarios OR one or more scenarios require improvement. Overall, student presented an acceptable exemplary front end of their prototype	The prototype is in general within an acceptable level of design and aesthetic quality; however the choice of software tool is not fully advocated for or discussed OR vice versa OR not all three scenarios are presented.	The prototype is very minimalistic in nature; either negates HCI and interaction design principles OR simply does not follow them. No rationale or process description is given of the choice of the software tool to prototype the system.
Evaluation 25%	Rigorous and comprehensive evaluation methodology, backed up with logic as to why the chosen methods are appropriate and also complete details are presented with respect to how the evaluation would be conducted; such that it is easily replicable by another HCI researcher or practitioner.	comprehensive evaluation methodology, backed up with logic as to why the chosen methods are appropriate and also complete details are presented with respect to how the evaluation would be conducted. Some minor improvements are required so the research can be replicable by other researchers	The evaluation methodology is in general well-presented but misses out on only 1or 2 ofthe majoraspects such as the rationale of the choice of method; going with the popular consensus of using a questionnaire survey without just cause; OR some details are missing making it impossible for another researcher to replicate the evaluation plan.	Satisfactory work. The evaluation methodology can be improved. Theevaluation summarydid not follow several of the asepcts within the template properly and as such some details are missing i.e. the number of participants, collecting informed consent from users etc. OR some details are missing making it impossible for another researcher to replicate the evaluation plan	Weak evaluation methodology with errors in choice of evaluation method with little or no reflection on the choice of research method chosen, as to almost appearing a random choice.
Presentation Layout and Communication Skills 15%	The student presents an engaging presentation, with excellent and well prepared verbal delivery, almost professional slides that adhere to high quality of presenting (i.e. appropriate colour schemes, use of visuals, media) and with a template that is designed to be relevant to the topic of choice.	The student presents an engaging presentation, with good and well prepared verbal delivery. minor improvements are required such as the use of graphics or visuals	Makesseveral design errors and communication errors in the presentation but is an overall engaging presentation.	Acceptable presentation, thestudent often reads from notes, did not engage the audience and was simply reading from the slides. Overall, quality of the slides require some major improvements e.g. the colour scheme.	Makes many design errors e.g. too much text, unreadable text, too many bullet points, no images, too many images, use of unrelated images, poor choice of colour schemes, inconsistent format, lack of contrast, poor choice of background image(s). In addition, makes many communication errors e.g. mumbles, speaks too quickly, clearly not prepared, doesnt look at audience, reads from text, has hands in pockets, turns back on audience while speaking etc.

Exemplar:
19
20
2.5.4 Literature Review Report

Weight:	20%
Type of Collaboration:	Individual
Due:	Sunday midnight May 19 on Turnitin
Submission:	Turnitin (Please do not email your submissions. Submissions sent by email will be disregarded and not marked. A cover sheet is not mandatory.)
Format:	PDF of 1500 – 2000 Words
Length:	1500-2000 words
Curriculum Mode:	Literature Review

Instructions:
This literature review report will be separate to the main project assessment. In this report each student will be
provided with a research area in HCI by the unit coordinator.
The student will then have to conduct research on the topic and present a literature review document and how to
follow the methodology of a systematic review. Proper training, guidelines and assistance will be provided to the
students in how to write a literature review. Clear differences between annotated bibliography and literature review
will be explained and it will be expected that the student delivers a report including critical and analytical synthesis.
It is expected that the student will employ a large range of references of academic nature (30 and beyond). It will also
be expected that the student consult with top tier journals and conferences in the specific area and HCI in general.
The student will be provided with a list of research topics by Week 3, allowing gradual progress on the assessment.
Sample topics or research area include: Cross-Cultural studies in HCI, the use of mobile phones to support users
with impairment, User perception of online educational tools,an overview of persuasive technology for health and well
being,etc. It is noted that these topics will be highly specific in nature, allowing the student to focus on a particular
aspect of the literature review.
Resources:
How to conduct a literature review
Systematic review technical report Online search strategies
Marking Criteria:

Criteria	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Unsatisfactory
Range ofReferences15%	A wide range of references are employed across top tier conferences and journals in HCI. Moreover, any theoretical concepts are underpinned on established frameworks in HCI (even if they are from years gone by).	A wide range of references but missing 1-2 key references or student has cited from not reputable academic sources.	A wide range of references are used but either most cited and well established or state of the art references are missing	Bare minimum references are used or most of the references are from non-academic sources.	Several important and key references are missing and the student employs only a minimal range of references
Thematic Synthesis55%	A wide range of academic sources are utilised, clear links are shown to the topic, gaps are identified and linked back to the topic. Literature Review is presented in themes and not as an annotated bibliography.	The thematic analysis is well presented but apparently some themes are unlinked or an overarching general schema is absent.	A wide range of academic references are presented but they are notholistical lyconnected to each other or vice versa	The thematic section of the literature review is merely a copy paste exercise from the sources.	Only a fewreferences are cited (mostly non academic) and anoverall synthesis is absent

Clarity &Presentation inReport 30%

The report is outstanding both from a written and visual perspective; Referencing follows the stated norms and conventions; lan guage(grammatical and otherwise) is clear and where appropriate images are included.

The report has minor presentation defects which could be easily fixed in a limited amount of time.

While in summary the presentation is acceptable, some aspects are left untreated such that either little or no textual/visual information is provided OR the text is compromised by language and grammar errors.

The article requires effort to understand and read and includes minimum information.

Students have not made any attempt to organise the report to give a clear message OR some cut andpasted information is provided without any flow or referencing.

Exemplar:
21
22
2.6 General Submission Requirements
Submission
– All assignments must be submitted by the specified due date and time.
– Complete your assignment and follow the individual assessment item instructions on how to submit. You must
keep a copy of all assignments submitted for marking.
Turnitin
– The Turnitin plagiarism prevention system may be used within this unit. Turnitin is accessed via logging into
vUWS for the unit. If Turnitin is being used with this unit, this means that your assignments have to be
submitted through the Turnitin system. Turnitin from iParadigms is a web-based text-matching software that
identifies and reports on similarities between documents. It is also widely utilised as a tool to improve academic
writing skills. Turnitin compares electronically submitted papers against the following:
– Current and archived web: Turnitin currently contains over 24 billion web pages including archived pages
– Student papers: including Western Sydney University student submissions since 2007
– Scholarly literature: Turnitin has partnered with leading content publishers, including library databases,
text-book publishers, digital reference collections and subscription-based publications (e.g. Gale, Proquest, Emerald and Sage)
– Turnitin is used by over 30 universities in Australia and is increasingly seen as an industry standard. It is
an important tool to assist students with their academic writing by promoting awareness of plagiarism.By
submitting your assignment to Turnitin you will be certifying that:
– I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged
– No part of this assignment has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except
where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment
– No part of the assignment has been written for me by any other person/s
– I have complied with the specified word length for this assignment
– I am aware that this work may be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for
the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism
checking).
Self-Plagiarising
– You are to ensure that no part of any submitted assignment for this unit or product has been submitted by
yourself in another (previous or current) assessment from any unit, except where appropriately referenced, and
with prior permission form the Lecturer/Tutor/Unit Co-ordinator of this unit.
Late Submission
– If you submit a late assessment, without receiving approval for an extension of time, (see next item), you will
be penalised by 10% per day for up to 10 days. In other words, marks equal to 10% of the assignment’s weight
will be deducted from the mark awarded.
– For example, if the highest mark possible is 50, 5 marks will be deducted from your awarded mark for each late
day.
– Saturday and Sunday are counted as one calendar day each.
– Assessments will not be accepted after the marked assessment task has been returned to students.
– This is consistent with Clause 51 of the Western Sydney University’s Assessment Policy – Criteria and StandardsBased Assessment.
Extension of Due Date for Submission
Extensions are only granted in exceptional circumstances. To apply for an extension of time, locate an application
form via the Western Sydney University homepage or copy the following link:
https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/currentstudents/current students/forms
Application forms must be submitted to the Unit Coordinator/Convenor. Requests for extension should be made as
early as possible and submitted within policy deadlines. Appropriate, supporting documentation must be submitted
with the application. An application for an extension does not automatically mean that an extension will be granted.
Assessments will not be accepted after the marked assessment task has been returned to students.
Resubmission Resubmission of assessment items will not normally be granted if requested.
23
Application for Special Consideration
It is strongly recommended that you attend all scheduled learning activities to support your learning. If you have
suffered misadventure, illness, or you have experienced exceptional circumstances that have prevented your attendance
at class or your completion and submission of assessment tasks, you may need to apply for Special Consideration via the
Western Sydney University website. http://www.westernsydney.edu.au/currentstudents/current students/services
and facilities/special consideration2 or the Student Centre/Sydney City Campus Reception. Special Consideration is
not automatically granted. It is your responsibility to ensure that any missed content has been covered. Your lecturer
will give you more information on how this must be done.
24
3 Teaching and Learning Activities

Weeks	Topic	Lecture	Tutorial	Instructions	Assessments Due
Week 1 04-03-2019	Introduction to the Unit, Introduction to HCI, Introduction to the Learning Guide and assessments	Yes – Face to Face	No	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.
Week 2 11-03-2019	The Human: Understanding Users, Normans Design Principles and Mental Models.	Online	Yes	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)
Week 3 18-03-2019	Conducting Research in HCI, Referencing and the use of End Note; Formulating research problem, brainstorming, finalising your design statement	Yes – Face to Face	Yes	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)

25

Weeks	Topic	Lecture	Tutorial	Instructions	Assessments Due
Week 4 25-03-2019	Understanding the H and C in HCI	Online	Yes	Assessment 2A due on Sunday March 19 midnight on Turnitin	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK) – Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%)
Week 5 01-04-2019	User Research, User Requirements Elicitation	Online	Yes	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)
Week 6 08-04-2019	Interaction/Interface Guidelines, Prototyping/Paper Wireframing (and a discussion of Assessment 2 B)	Yes – Face to Face	Yes	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)
Week 7 15-04-2019	User-centered Design	Online	Yes	Assessment 2B due on Sunday midnight April 9	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)

26

Weeks	Topic	Lecture	Tutorial	Instructions	Assessments Due
Week 8 22-04-2019	Interaction Design (continued) and Design Heuristics	Online	No tutorials in week 8	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK) – Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%)
Week 9 29-04-2019
Week 10 06-05-2019	Software Wireframing, and a discussion on Assessment 2C	Yes – Face to Face	No tutorial on Tuesday due to ANZAC day	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)
Week 11 13-05-2019	Software Wireframing, Accessibility and Design, Novel topics in HCI and Usability Evaluation	Online	Yes	Assessment 3 due on Sunday midnight May 7	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK)

27

Weeks	Topic	Lecture	Tutorial	Instructions	Assessments Due
Week 12 20-05-2019	Evaluation Methodologies and a final discussion on Assessment 2C	Yes – Face to Face	Yes	Please refer to vUWS site for associated online content such as video snippets, research articles, assessment templates, slides, etc.	– TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (IN-CLASS) – TUTORIAL WORKBOOK (HOMEWORK) – Research Project A. Project Brief (10%) B. Low Fidelity Prototype Report (15%) C. High Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation Methodology Presentation (25%)
Week 13 27-05-2019	Presentations 2C Scheduled	No	Yes – Tutorials will run as normal to accommodate final presentations – Assessment 2C	Assessment 2C Slides must be submitted online by Sunday midnight May 14. Your presentation will be scheduled in your respective Tutorial in Week 13 or Week 14. Please contact your tutor for further assistance.
Week 14 03-06-2019	Presentations 2C Scheduled	No	Yes – Tutorials will run as normal to accommodate final presentations – Assessment 2C	Your presentation will be scheduled in your respective Tutorial in Week 13 or Week 14. Please contact your tutor for further assistance.	– Literature Review Report
Week 15 10-06-2019
Week 16 17-06-2019
Week 17 24-06-2019

The above timetable should be used as a guide only, as it is subject to change. Students will be advised of any changes as they become known on the unit’s vUWS site.
28
4 Learning Resources
4.1 Recommended Readings
Essential Reading
– Dix, A. (2004). Human-computer interaction. New York: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Additional Reading
– Barnum, C. M. (2011). Usability testing essentials: ready, set– test. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
– Bednyi, G. Z., & Karwowski, W. (2011). Human-computer interaction and operators’ performance: optimizing
work design with activity theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
– Bowles, C., & Box, J. (2011). Undercover user experience: learn how to do great UX work with tiny budgets,
no time, and limited support. Berkeley, Calif: New Riders.
– Cheok, A. D. (2010). Art and Technology of Entertainment Computing and Communication: Advances in
Interactive New Media for Entertainment Computing. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited.
– Ensslin, A. & Muse, E. J. (2011). Creating second lives: community, identity, and spatiality as constructions
of the virtual (Vol. 8.). New York: Routledge.
– Ginsburg, S. (2011). Designing the iPhone user experience: a user-centered approach to sketching and prototyping iPhone apps. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
– Leavitt, M. O., Shneiderman, B. (2006). Research-based web design & usability guidelines. United States.
– Marcus, A., Roibas, A. C. & Sala, R. (2010). Mobile TV: Customizing Content and Experience: Mobile
Storytelling, Creation and Sharing. London: Springer-Verlag London.
– Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester: Wiley.
– Tidwell, J. (2011). Designing interfaces. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
29