EVALUATION PROJECT AND REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION
Due: Week 1, Semester 1 assessment (Monday, 6 January 2020 at 16:00)
Submission: Canvas Turnitin submission
Assignment weighting: 60% of overall module marks
Word limit: 2500 words
INSTRUCTIONS
For this assignment, you should carry out an evaluation of an existing multi-player smartphone game. You can choose any game you like, running on any smartphone platform(s), as long as the game requires more than one person to play it at the same time (either playing remotely, or physically co-located). The overall objective of the evaluation is to come up with recommendations on how to improve/enhance people’s experiences when playing the game. You might want to think about improving the way people interact with their smartphone when playing the game and/or interacting with the game content, in a stable or varying use context.[unique_solution]
The evaluation will involve collecting data, drawing up guidelines for design improvements based on your findings, and submitting a report which summarises your research process and results.
The aim of this assignment is for you to demonstrate a good understanding and practical application of one or more of the evaluation methods covered in the module. You should recruit participants from your family and friends, and/or use inspection methods with you acting as the expert.
Evaluation should focus on:
a multi-player smartphone game specific usability factors
specific user experience factors
PROJECT TASKS AND METHODS
Key project tasks:
Specify the evaluation problem by clearly defining the question (or questions) and objectives Decide and justify which usability and/or user experience aspects you will evaluate
Choose evaluation method(s) appropriate for your evaluation project and justify the choice of method or
combination of methods, keeping in mind triangulation of methods Carry out the evaluation and collect data
Analyse the data collected and highlight the key implications for design (or re-design)
Write your report based on the previous steps (max 2500 words, not including appendices)
Potentially appropriate methods (but be sure you pick one that matches your focus):
Interviews
Experience Sampling Method
Observation, potentially including think aloud Expert/inspection methods
1
PROJECT REPORT
Reports must include:
Introduction & Background (explanation of evaluation problem)
Evaluation approach (method used, procedure and materials, analysis)
Findings & Discussion (explanation of findings and key implications for design) Conclusions (limitations and future work)
References (sources used)
Appendices (optional, but can be used to include the information/consent form if required, any materials used in the evaluation, and/or raw data where appropriate)
MARKING CRITERIA
70-100% – Excellent report and evaluation. Evaluation question(s) and objectives are clearly defined and method(s) used are well-justified. Either one method is used in a rigorous and in-depth way, or a combination of methods are used effectively together. Findings are presented clearly and a detailed analysis has been carried out. Some highly relevant and appropriate implications for re-design are discussed, and limitations are discussed in a way which shows reflection and learning. References are used effectively to back up methods used and background to project.
60-69% – Very good report and evaluation. The question(s) and objectives are defined, and appropriate method(s) are chosen to investigate these. The method(s) used are well justified, and there is some rigour and detail in the way they are used. Some relevant findings are presented, and an appropriate analysis has been carried out on the data collected. Some convincing re-design implications are drawn from the analysis, and there is a discussion of the limitations of the work carried out. Sources are correctly referenced.
50-59% – Fair report and evaluation. There is some attempt to define and explain the evaluation question(s) and/or objectives, but this may be unclear. The methods chosen may not be appropriate to the question. Some findings are presented, but these may lack detail. There is some effort to analyse the data collected, but there are problems with the way this is described. Re-design implications are discussed, but they may be too brief, or may not match the findings and data presented. There is little reflection on the limitations of the project. There may be missing references.
40-49% – Poor report and evaluation. There is little discussion of the evaluation question and objectives, or the discussion is very unclear. There are major problems with the methods chosen and their justification. There are some findings presented, but these do not match the explanation of the methods, or are very brief. There may be no evidence of analysis, or a very poor analysis which is not well explained. Re-design implications are either missing, or are not backed up by any of the findings or analysis. There are major problems with the referencing.
30-39% – Very poor report and evaluation. Key elements of the project are missing or only covered very briefly. There is no convincing overview of what the evaluation set out to achieve, and the methods used are not appropriate, or not discussed. There is little to no analysis, and findings are unconvincing, or not discussed. Re-design implications are not presented in any meaningful way. There are major problems with the referencing.
Below 30% – Report has very little content of relevance.