Solent University Coursework Assessment Brief

Download Solution Now

Assessment Details

Module Title: UX Strategies

Module Code: QHO639

Module Leader: Dr Muhammed Ali Bingol

Level: 6

Assessment Title: Solent Alumni Programme System

Assessment Number: AE1

Assessment Type: Report + Prototype

Restrictions on Time/Word Count: 3000 words

Consequenceofnotmeeting time/word count limit: It is essential that assignments keep within the time/word count limit stated above. Any work beyond the maximum

time/word length permitted will be disregarded and not accounted for in the final grade. *

Individual/Group: Individual

Assessment Weighting: 100%

Issue Date: 17/02/2023

Hand In Date: 9th June 2023 before 4 pm

Planned Feedback Date:

Mode of Submission: on-line via SOL

Number of copies to be submitted: 1 Copy per student including all parts of assignment

Anonymous Marking This assessment Is exempt from anonymous marking.

Assessment Task

DESIGN BRIEF AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

website https://www.solent.ac.uk/alumni and related services / resources. The main university contacts at this time are Mike Toy (SUAA manager) and Mark Humphrys (Marketing Manager). Please coordinate your communication with these staff members so we dont send too many individual emails. Their support time is limited as our clients.

This is a summary of the overall assessment tasks:

A market research study will be done with at least 1 other university similar to SU.

Conduct a review of the Solent University mission, vision, value etc. statements in light of corporate social responsibility to identify any gaps.

Critically compare this to at least 1 comparable UK university.

Critically compare this website to at least 1 other UK university alumni website. NOTE: figures and tables can be put in the report appendix to save on word count.

Review the SUAA website (https://www.solent.ac.uk/alumni ) for UX strategy including the services and resources offered.

The data collected and analysed will help inform some recommended changes to the resources e.g. UX designs

All ethical guidelines for research and NDA (non-disclosure agreements) or data protection policies will be followed. e.g. consent forms for current Computing students will be used to get primary data on the current website and resources, compared to the student's recommendations.

Students will compile short interview questions for Mike and Mark as part of the business and website review process to submit as a group (not individuals).

Any surveys or interviews will done with current students (prospective alumni), not with SU graduates due to data privacy regulations.

A 3K word summary report will be provided based on last year's assessment to provide consistency as detailed below.

NB: Recommendations will not be implemented. A summary presentation video will be made from student submissions.

The project will be broken into four distinctive parts, which are explained below.

89598517399000

Part 1 Introduction to System

Deliverable 1000 Words

89598516510000

Part 1 will be the assimilation of relevant information about the functionality of the system and requirements for the interface based on the type of user and frequency of use and clearly defined business goals. This section aims at what stockholders/shareholders want? An introduction should be provided to introduce your team idea, what solution it solves using context analysis or based on gain and pain model.

Introduction should provide answers to the following questions:

What is the context? Who are the users? What is the system? What is the problem? Why is it important?

Who should benefit from it?

What impact does technology have on that context? What is the feature list comparison of existing systems?

89598516954500

Part 2 User Research Analysis

Deliverable 1000 Words

89598516827500

In UX, it is important to understand who the users are and what are their needs. In order to do that you should utilise a variety of UX methods, minimum required:

Contextual Interviews - Enable you to observe users in their natural environment, giving you a better understanding of the way users work.

Surveys - A series of questions asked to multiple users of your idea.

You should produce a valid list of user groups (Demographics, Geographic, Psychographic and behavioural) attributes table. You must also produce a list of user needs in a form of a table.

89598517208500

Part 3 User Journey

Deliverable Poster/Video

89598516510000

At this point, as per part 1 and part 2, you should have two essential UX outcomes available, User Research findings in a form user needs and objectives and a clearly defined business goal. In this section, you are required to produce a fully detailed user journey including all the following elements:

User Persona (Minimum 2 persona representing two typical user groups)

User Scenario (Minimum 2)

User Goals

Flow of Tasks/Information/Screens/IXDs/Contents/Information Architecture

Empathy Mapping

Usability Metrics

Make a short video (no more than 5 minutes) to explain these elements.

The web link to the video will need to be included in the final report for Part 3 of the assessment

template.

89598517145000

Part 4 Prototype

Deliverable prototype89598516827500

Part 4 will be the production of a prototype. You are required to produce the prototype interface using an appropriate prototyping tool. Each team member is responsible for ensuring that their design area is prototyped. Populate your interface prototype with example data sufficient to demonstrate the prototypes functionality.

https://gomockingbird.com/homehttps://www.fluidui.com/http://www.foreui.com/https://www.uxpin.com/http://www.hotgloo.com/https://moqups.com/http://www.justinmind.com/You will be required to demonstrate your software prototype in your normal Tutorial, times to be advised during class by the unit tutor. Please make sure that your prototype is accessible online. Make sure that when you chose the prototyping tool to consider whether it could be exported and extracted for SOL submission. Alternatively, a web link of the prototype needs to be valid for at least 90 days.

89598517970500

Part 5 Usability Testing

Deliverable 1000 Words

89598516827500

Part five will be the usability testing. As part of your interface implementation process, you will have to test your interface. Your will be responsible for what UX or Usability testing you carrying out, and accordingly, design the test and have it approved by your tutor. You should recruit participants to test the project, with predefined demographical criteria, you will be responsible to bring them to the lab and test your interface. Data analysis of this part should inform the final design, and this should be documented in 1000 words report supported with heat maps and gaze plots.

Usability testing metrics:

Layout: Inability to detect something users need to find; Aesthetic problems; Unnecessary Information.

Terminology: Unable to understand the terminology.

Feedback: User does not receive relevant feedback or it is inconsistent with what the user expects.

Comprehension: Inability to understand the instructions given to users on the site.

Data Entry: Problems with entering information.

Navigation: Problems with finding users way around the test site/system/software.

Assessment criteria

A B D F

C Analysis of User experience requirements, usability planning & design (ref L.O. K1,C1,P1) Able to critically analyse

UX Identification,

problem and conduct a

thorough Good understanding

of UX Able to recognise a

UX Can identify some key analysis, planning

analysis, plan & design of

a analysis techniques

and research issues and

apply a elements of the HCI a poor standard

developmentproblem,

select methodologies

evidenced series of steps problem and plan a set

of which

meet does not

effectivelybetween

different byset

analytical of UX inproviding

solution to a a actions to achieve that

task oraddress

problem

alternatives and provide artefacts.

apply a Able to usability&

interaction based upon a given

method. area.

reach Does not

justification in the context

of suitable, development

problem. Although sufficient has

flaws required

threshold.

problem and in the light of logical

steps series of However, analysis or inelementsand/or

actions, Doesntinclude

existing HCI theory. effectively and design may be weak

in and/ormethod.

Analysis has artefact.

To include: User analysis,

task consistentlyin

providing parts or use of the the minimum required analysis, screen asolutiontoa

usability methodology

inconsistent. elements that exceed

the designs,windows

hierarchy &

interaction/software Toinclude:User

analysis, threshold. diagrams etc. More development

problem. To task analysis, screen complete

include designs will include:User

analysis, task designs,windows

hierarchy establishment of analysis, screen diagrams. usability requirements for designs,windows

hierarchy subsequent evaluation. diagrams. Implementation of Design and Evaluation (ref

L.O. K1,C1) Able to produce a usable

and Canimplementa

design Can implement an

HCI Can apply visual Does not reach

robust interface with fully spec. in full, within a problemsolution

from a environmentdesign

tools required

threshold.

functionalcomponents

from a visual environment design specification andtechniquesin

solving a Implementation &

given specification fully well-informed by informedby

evaluation. structured and/or user evaluation

informed by evaluation. evaluation while Thespecification

may not relatedproblem

informed by inadequate.

Demonstrates

exceptional skill respecting good be implemented in

full evaluation.However,

the in the use of the visual professional HCI and/or the system

may not solution may be partial

or development

environment. principlesand

practice. besufficiently

robust. may employ

subset of only a Comprehensiveand

thorough Somerobust

usability Some evaluation /

testing theappropriate

techniques. evaluation and usability

testing. evaluation / testing. willhavebeen

carried out. Evaluation superficial, marginal testing. Identification and appraisal of key areas of work (ref L.O. C1,P1) Ableto

conduct a define and Able to define and Able to define and

reflect Able to describe and

partly Does not reach

rigorous critique of key

areas in reflectuponkey

areas in on key areas in the

context reflect on some key required

threshold.

the context of very clearly the context of well- of recognized HCI

issues. elements

HCI within the Identification &

defined HCI issues and to defined HCI issues

and Some solid critical area.Definitionand

critical appraisal

poor of a

evaluate the solution and

the provide a critical evaluationagainst

original evaluationis

superficial. standard

fails which

solution

reference strategy with assessmentof

actions requirements though

this to reach required

to existing theory. Able to taken.Ableto identify could be extended. threshold.

assess the implications of alternative solution adoptingalternative

solution strategies. strategies Knowledge and Understanding & Contribution (ref L.O. C1,T1) Demonstrates a detailed Comprehensive

overall Demonstrates

familiarity Satisfactory

understanding Does not reach

recognitionand

knowledge of understandingof

issues withissuesand

practice in andidentificationof

HCI required

threshold.

theory & practice in the

context &practiceinthe

context thecontextof

human- issues,design

capabilities , Inaccuracies /

ofhumandigital

interaction and of human digital digitalinteraction

with a evaluation issues and omissions

areas of in

an in-depth identification

and interaction with a software model. functionally

interface of the theory & practice

may

4628515813435000

understandingof

concepts. software model. Has Reasonable

familiarity with andsoftware

but model besubstantial

with

Hasthe

synthesize ability to readaround

subject the recommended

reading. lacking in depth and irrelevancies.

and apply information in

the andisable

integrate to Somegapsin

significant breadth.Minor

contribution Struggles or fails

solution of a problem in and organise areas.Contribution

to to group. Poor written engage with

conjunctionwithteam.

Makes a information.Has

clearly group is acceptably reflection on work concepts, issues

fullwell

positive managed & workedwith

team the managed with some

gaps contributed to

with group within HCI. Very

contributiontowork

produced andmade

significant a indepthand

breadth. little or no example littleorno

reflection

by group. Is able to reflect

fully contribution to Written reflection of artefacts,poor

referencing. oncontribution

with

on how contribution is

made group/teamwork.

Able contributionis

constructed noexample

artefacts.

with fully referenced clear to reflect on how clearlywithsome

gaps and example artefacts. contribution is made

with fewexample

artefacts referenced examples. which may not be clearly referenced. Presentation & planning (ref L.O. C1,P1,T1) Provides a coherent Meetsthebasic Comprehensive, detailed, Provides a coherent style guidelines Does not reach

coherent, & consistent clear well planned and structure for the foragiven

presentation and required

threshold.

throughout with no errors

of whole. Consistent in subject in hand with

some presentational style. Aspects

substantially

rationale

fact, reasoning or rationale, reasoning

, structuraland

information Evidence of planning. unclear,

incoherent or

Very well planned. Planning. defects.Well planned. missing

Learning Outcomes

This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the Module descriptors.

Late Submissions

Students are reminded that:

If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;

If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;

If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.

https://students.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic- handbook/2o-assessment-principles-regulations-temporary-amendments-for-covid-19- contingency-plans.pdfExtenuating Circumstances

The Universitys Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not 'fit to study, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer). In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence. If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested. Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact the Student Hub for advice.

Please find a link to the EC policy below:

https://students.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic- handbook/2p-extenuating-circumstances.pdfAcademic Misconduct

Any submission must be students own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The Universitys Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct. Students should check this link before submitting their work.

Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:

https://students.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic-handbook/4l- student-academic-misconduct-procedure.pdfEthics Policy

The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.

The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook: https://staff.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic-handbook/2s- solent-university-ethics-policy.pdfGrade marking

The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.

https://students.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic- handbook/2o-annex-3-assessment-regulations-grade-marking-scale.docxGuidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)

http://learn.solent.ac.uk/onlinesubmission

Solent University

Coursework Assessment Submission

Module Name: UX Strategy Module Code: COM621

Module Leader: Dr Anthony Basiel

Assessment Submission Date:

Student Number:

UX Strategy

Contents

TOC o "1-3" h z u Part 1 Introduction to System (1K words) PAGEREF _Toc88054910 h 21.0 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc88054911 h 21.1Current SUAA UX Design and Business Model PAGEREF _Toc88054912 h 21.2Academic and Market Research PAGEREF _Toc88054913 h 31.3Analysis PAGEREF _Toc88054914 h 31.4Summary PAGEREF _Toc88054915 h 32.0 Essay 2 (1K words) PAGEREF _Toc88054916 h 32.1 User research PAGEREF _Toc88054917 h 32.2 User Journey PAGEREF _Toc88054918 h 32.3 Summary PAGEREF _Toc88054919 h 3Add web link to (max 5 min) video of User Journey analysis. PAGEREF _Toc88054920 h 33.0 Essay 3 (1K words) PAGEREF _Toc88054921 h 33.1 Prototype - Add web link to prototype sample. PAGEREF _Toc88054922 h 33.2 Usability Testing PAGEREF _Toc88054923 h 33.3 Summary PAGEREF _Toc88054924 h 34.0 Conclusions and Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc88054925 h 35.0 References PAGEREF _Toc88054926 h 3Assessment Appendix PAGEREF _Toc88054927 h 5Learning Outcomes: Self-Assessment (LOs mapped for each of the 3 sections. Evidence all 5 are addressed.) PAGEREF _Toc88054928 h 10Ethics Policy PAGEREF _Toc88054929 h 11

Part 1 Introduction to System (1K words)1.0 Introduction[ Add LO Number(s) for each section they are addressed ]What is the context?

Who are the users?

What is the system?

What is the problem?

Why is it important?

Who should benefit from it?

What impact does technology have on that context?

What is the feature list comparison of existing systems?

Current SUAA UX Design and Business Model

[ Add ]

Academic and Market Research

[ Add ]

Analysis[ Add ]

Summary[ Add ]

2.0 Essay 2 (1K words)2.1 User research

2.2 User Journey

2.3 SummaryAdd web link to (max 5 min) video of User Journey analysis.3.0 Essay 3 (1K words)3.1 Prototype - Add web link to prototype sample.3.2 Usability Testing3.3 Summary4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations5.0 ReferencesHarvard Style (Surname, 1st Initial. (Date), Title Publication / Web address <visit date>

Assessment AppendixAssessment Details

Module Title: UX Strategies

Module Code: COM621

Module Leader: Dr. Anthony Basiel

Level: 6

Assessment Title: Solent Alumni Programme System

Assessment Number: AE1

Assessment Type: Report + Prototype

Restrictions on Time/Word Count: 3000 words

Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit: It is essential that assignments keep within the time/word count limit stated above. Any work beyond the maximum time/word length permitted will be disregarded and not accounted for in the final grade. *

Individual/Group: Individual

Assessment Weighting: 100%

Issue Date: 30 Sept. 2021

Hand In Date: 21/1/2022

Planned Feedback Date: 04/02/2022

Mode of Submission: on-line via SOL

Number of copies to be submitted: 1 Copy per student including all parts of assignment

Anonymous Marking

This assessment is exempt from anonymous marking.

Assessment Task

DESIGN BRIEF AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

This project aims to research and analyse the UX Strategy for the Solent University Alumni Association (SUAA). A project Gantt chart will be needed to produce a work plan for the 3 K word final report. Weekly progress will be shared in each class session and online. Students will do a case study analysis of the Solent University Alumni Association current website https://www.solent.ac.uk/alumni and related services / resources. The main university contacts are Mike Toy (SUAA manager) and Mark Humphrys (Marketing Manager). Please coordinate your communication with these staff members so we dont send too many individual emails. Their support time is limited as our clients.

This is a summary of the overall assessment tasks:

1. A market research study will be done with at least 1 other university similar to SU.

1. Conduct a review of the Solent University mission, vision, value etc.

statements in light of corporate social responsibility to identify any gaps.

2. Critically compare this to at least 1 comparable UK university.

3. Critically compare this website to at least 1 other UK university alumni

website. NOTE: figures and tables can be put in the report appendix to save

on word count.

2. Review the SUAA website (https://www.solent.ac.uk/alumni ) for UX strategy

including the services and resources offered.

3. The data collected and analysed will help inform some recommended changes to

the resources e.g. UX designs.

4. All ethical guidelines for research and NDA (non-disclosure agreements) or data

protection policies will be followed. e.g. consent forms for current Computing

students will be used to get primary data on the current website and resources,

compared to the student's recommendations.

5. COM621 students will compile short interview questions for Mike and Mark as part of the business and website review process to submit as a group (not individuals).

6. Any surveys or interviews will done with current students (prospective alumni), not

with SO graduates due to data privacy regulations.

7. A 3K word summary report will be provided based on last year's assessment to

provide consistency as detailed below.

NB: Recommendations will not be implemented. A summary presentation video will

be made from student submissions.

The project will be broken into four distinctive parts, which are explained below.

Part 1 Introduction to System

Deliverable 1000 Words

Introduction should provide answers to the following questions:

What is the context?

Who are the users?

What is the system?

What is the problem?

Why is it important?

Who should benefit from it?

What impact does technology have on that context?

What is the feature list comparison of existing systems?

Part 2 User Research Analysis

Deliverable 1000 Words

In UX, it is important to understand who the users are and what are their needs. In order to do that you should utilise a variety of UX methods, minimum required:

Contextual Interviews- Enable you to observe users in their natural environment, giving you a better understanding of the way users work.

Surveys- A series of questions asked to multiple users of your idea.

You should produce a valid list of user groups (Demographics, Geographic, Psychographic and behavioural) attributes table. You must also produce a list of user needs in a form of a table.

Part 3 User Journey

Deliverable Poster /Video

User Persona (Minimum 2 persona representing two typical user groups)

User Scenario (Minimum 2)

User Goals

Flow of Tasks/Information/Screens/IXDs/Contents/Information Architecture

Empathy Mapping

Usability Metrics

Part 4 Prototype

Deliverable prototype

HYPERLINK "https://gomockingbird.com/home" https://gomockingbird.com/home.htm

HYPERLINK "https://www.fluidui.com/" https://www.fluidui.com/

HYPERLINK "http://www.foreui.com/" http://www.foreui.com/

HYPERLINK "https://www.uxpin.com/" https://www.uxpin.com/

HYPERLINK "http://www.hotgloo.com/" http://www.hotgloo.com/

HYPERLINK "https://moqups.com/" https://moqups.com/

HYPERLINK "http://www.justinmind.com/" http://www.justinmind.com/

You will be required to demonstrate your software prototype in your normal Tutorial, times to be advised during class by the unit tutor. Please make sure that your prototype is accessible online. Make sure that when you chose the prototyping tool to consider whether it could be exported and extracted for SOL submission. Alternatively, a web link of the prototype needs to be valid for at least 90 days.

Part 5 Usability Testing

Deliverable 1000 Words

Usability testing metrics:

Layout: Inability to detect something users need to find; Aesthetic problems; Unnecessary Information.

Terminology: Unable to understand the terminology.

Feedback: User does not receive relevant feedback or it is inconsistent with what the user expects.

Comprehension: Inability to understand the instructions given to users on the site.

Data Entry: Problems with entering information.

Navigation: Problems with finding users way around the test site/system/software.

Assessment criteria

A B C D F

Analysis of User experience requirements, usability planning & design (ref L.O. K1,C1,P1) Able to critically analyse UX Identification,

problem and conduct a thorough Good understanding of UX Able to recognise a UX Can identify some key analysis, planning of

analysis, plan & design of a analysis techniques and research issues and apply a elements of the HCI a poor standard

development problem, select methodologies evidenced series of steps problem and plan a set of which does not meet

effectively between different by set of UX analytical in providing a solution to a actions to achieve that task or address problem

alternatives and provide artefacts. Able to apply a usability & interaction based upon a given method. area. Does not reach

justification in the context of suitable, development problem. Although sufficient has flaws required threshold.

problem and in the light of logical series of steps However, analysis or in elements and/or actions, Doesnt include UX

existing HCI theory. effectively and design may be weak in and/or method. Analysis has artefact.

To include: User analysis, task consistently in providing parts or use of the the minimum required analysis, screen a solution to a usability methodology inconsistent. elements that exceed the designs, windows hierarchy & interaction/software To include: User analysis, threshold. diagrams etc. More development problem. To task analysis, screen complete designs will include include: User analysis, task designs, windows hierarchy establishment of analysis, screen diagrams. usability requirements for designs, windows hierarchy subsequent evaluation. diagrams. Implementation of Design and Evaluation (ref L.O. K1,C1) Able to produce a usable and Can implement a design Can implement an HCI Can apply visual Does not reach

robust interface with fully spec. in full, within a problem solution from a environment design tools required threshold.

functional components from a visual environment design specification and techniques in solving a Implementation &

given specification fully well-informed by informed by evaluation. structured and/or user evaluation

informed by evaluation. evaluation while The specification may not related problem informed by inadequate.

Demonstrates exceptional skill respecting good be implemented in full evaluation. However, the in the use of the visual professional HCI and/or the system may not solution may be partial or development environment. principles and practice. be sufficiently robust. may employ only a subset of Comprehensive and thorough Some robust usability Some evaluation / testing the appropriate techniques. evaluation and usability testing. evaluation / testing. will have been carried out. Evaluation superficial, marginal testing. Identification and appraisal of key areas of work (ref L.O. C1,P1) Able to define and conduct a Able to define and Able to define and reflect Able to describe and partly Does not reach

rigorous critique of key areas in reflect upon key areas in on key areas in the context reflect on some key required threshold.

the context of very clearly the context of well- of recognized HCI issues. elements within the HCI Identification &

defined HCI issues and to defined HCI issues and Some solid critical area. Definition and critical appraisal of a poor

evaluate the solution and the provide a critical evaluation against original evaluation is superficial. standard which fails

solution strategy with reference assessment of actions requirements though this to reach required

to existing theory. Able to taken. Able to identify could be extended. threshold.

assess the implications of alternative solution adopting alternative solution strategies. strategies Knowledge and Understanding & Contribution (ref L.O. C1,T1) Demonstrates a detailed Comprehensive overall Demonstrates familiarity Satisfactory understanding Does not reach

recognition and knowledge of understanding of issues with issues and practice in and identification of HCI required threshold.

theory & practice in the context & practice in the context the context of human- issues, design capabilities , Inaccuracies /

of human digital interaction and of human digital digital interaction with a evaluation issues and omissions in areas of

an in-depth identification and interaction with a software model. functionally of the interface theory & practice may

understanding of concepts. software model. Has Reasonable familiarity with and software model but be substantial with

Has the ability to synthesize read around the subject recommended reading. lacking in depth and irrelevancies.

and apply information in the and is able to integrate Some gaps in significant breadth. Minor contribution Struggles or fails to

solution of a problem in and organise areas. Contribution to to group. Poor written engage with

conjunction with team. Makes a information. Has clearly group is acceptably reflection on work concepts, issues

full well managed & positive worked with the team managed with some gaps contributed to group with within HCI. Very

contribution to work produced and made a significant in depth and breadth. little or no example little or no reflection

by group. Is able to reflect fully contribution to Written reflection of artefacts, poor referencing. on contribution with

on how contribution is made group/team work. Able contribution is constructed no example artefacts.

with fully referenced clear to reflect on how clearly with some gaps and example artefacts. contribution is made with few example artefacts referenced examples. which may not be clearly referenced. Presentation & planning (ref L.O. C1,P1,T1) Comprehensive, detailed, Provides a coherent Provides a coherent style Meets the basic guidelines Does not reach

coherent, & consistent clear well planned and structure for the for a given presentation and required threshold.

throughout with no errors of whole. Consistent in subject in hand with some presentational style. Aspects substantially

rationale reasoning or fact, rationale, reasoning, structural and information Evidence of planning. unclear, incoherent or

Very well planned. Planning. defects. Well planned. missing

Learning Outcomes: Self-Assessment(LOs mapped for each of the 3 sections. Evidence all 5 are addressed.)What you will be able to do after the module: Use the key words of the LOs.

Module Learning Outcome Evidence (pg #)

Notes Personal Learning Outcome

1. Implement problem solving techniques into designing features and functionalities to produce industry level products. 2. Compare User Experience principles to accommodate different forms of interaction across multiple touchpoints (physical and/or digital), and to formulate and apply these principles in complex contexts. 3. Analyze proposed UX design solutions using a range of methodologies and techniques against goals, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs).

4. Critically evaluate and validate solutions against goals, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) with a view to continuous improvement of the digital product or service. 5. Apply accessibility principles to digital product design.

Ethics PolicyThe work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.

The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:

https://staff.solent.ac.uk/official-documents/quality-management/academic-handbook/2s-solent-university-ethics-policy.pdfThe British Education Research Association (BERA) research guidelines are useful for your surveys and interviews.

For commercial research, you may want to use a free online NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) such as: https://legaltemplates.net/form/non-disclosure-agreement/

I have read and applied the appropriate ethics guidelines for this assessment.

Download Solution Now

Uploaded By : Pooja Dhaka
Posted on : November 25th, 2024
Downloads : 0
Views : 174

Solent University Coursework Assessment Brief

Download Solution Now

Download Solution Now

Choose a Plan

Premium

Gold

Silver

Solent University Coursework Assessment Brief

Download Solution Now

Download Solution Now

Choose a Plan

Premium

Gold

Silver

Request a Call Back