Deliverables


1. Preparation Activities


Ethics Training (P1)

The TCPS 2 Tutorial Course on Research Ethics (CORE), also known as the TCPS2 tutorial, is mandatory for all researchers who intend to engage in research with human participants. In this course, you will be interviewing target end users. Before contacting users and conducting interviews, each student is required to individually complete the ethics tutorial before they can proceed in the course.

Grading Scheme: No grade is assigned, but all students must complete this requirement; otherwise, they cannot continue in the course.

Preparation for Studio (P2-P12)

There are 11 preparation activities in total, involving lecture videos and individual/team-based design activities. Each week's preparation activity must be completed before upcoming studio lab. The studio acitivity depend on and build upon the preparation activity, and so, failure to complete the preparation work will negatively affect the team's ability to complete the studio activity. All preparation activities should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: Each preparation activity will be graded out of 10 based on completeness, (i.e., all sections are filled in, all text/images/captions provided). Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


2. Studio Activities


Design Activities (D1-D8)

The studio labs are interactive and fast-paced. Students will work with their team, as well as with other teams, on a variety of design activities; these include a value proposition workshop, mock interviews, affinity diagramming workshop, value sensitive design workshop, and paper prototyping. Teams should upload all in-class work (photos, drawings, notes) to the design notebook by midnight after the studio class. Polished writeup of the design activities should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: The design activity will be graded out of 10 based on completeness (i.e., all sections are filled in, all text/images/captions provided) and quality: 10 points for complete and perfect submission, 7.5 points for complete but can be improved submissions, and 5 points for incomplete submissions or submissions that need substantial improvement. Teams with complete and perfect submission may be given 5 bonus points for considered further for being the best submission amongst all submissions in the lab section. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Design Critique Session (CR):

There is a design critique session where teams will present designs and provide critique to each other's designs.

Grading Scheme: Each design critique session is peer graded, based on the design presentation (out of 15) and the quality of the critique (out of 10). Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Prototype Evaluation (E1, E2):

Students will conduct two prototype evaluations---a low-fidelity prototype evaluation (E1) and a high-fidelity prototype evaluation (E2), with fellow students in the studio lab acting as their mock users. The findings from the prototype evaluations should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: The prototype evaluation will be graded out of 10 based on completeness. Completeness here means (1) completeness of the writeup (i.e., all sections are filled in, all text/images/captions provided), (2) completeness of the prototype itself, i.e., is it interactive? does it adequately cover/test your features? (3) completeness of the evaluation procedure, i.e., is the evaluation procedure properly followed? Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Challenge Report (CH1) and Presentation (CH2):

The challenge report (CH1) asks you to (1) describe your assumptions/hypotheses, (2) where these assumptions/hypotheses come from, (3) what you did each week do to test your assumptions/hypotheses, (4) what you found out (5) What your latest assumptions/hypotheses are based on what you found out. The challenge reports should be documented in the design notebook, and should be around 1-2 pages. Students are asked to keep notes each week to keep track of their assumptions/hypotheses and how they challenge/test them.

During the challenge report presentation, two people from each team will together give a short presentation (~6 mins total) to describe their challenge report. The rest of the class should engage in a discussion, by asking questions, giving feedback or sharing their own experiences (~4 mins). The presentation must be at most 6 slides.

Grading Scheme: The challenge reports are graded out of 25, 20 for the writeup based on a rubric, 5 for the completeness of the challenge report notes. The presentation is graded out of 20 based on a rubric. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


3. Team Building Exercises


Team Contract (T1):

At the beginning of the course, the team will draft a team contract, which specifies how the team will work together. The team contract should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: The team contract is graded out of 1 based on completeness (i.e., all the required information is provided and nothing is missing.) Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Team Building Activities (T2, T3):

Each team will complete a bi-weekly team building exericse. Learnings from the team building activities should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: The team buliding activities are graded out of 1 based on completeness (i.e., all the required information is provided and nothing is missing.) Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Team Reflection (T4):

Each team will reflect on their successes and challenges that they face as a team over the term. Learnings from the team reflection should be documented in the design notebook.

Grading Scheme: The team reflection are graded out of 1 based on completeness (i.e., all the required information is provided and nothing is missing.) Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


4. Project Outputs


User Interviews (PO1):

You should recruit 6-8 target users (as identified in your personas and empathy maps) to participate in informational interviews and prototype evaluations. You must follow ethics procedure, collect verbal consent, keep all the data (notes, images, etc) in a password-protected computer, data server or cloud services, private and viewable to your team only. The data must not have identifiable information about the participants (e.g., names or faces). Try to find target users beyond just fellow students. For every user interview (information interviews or prototype evaluations), enter into the design notebook (1) a summary of your findings, (2) a description of any changes to your interview questions or procedures that you plan to introduce in future interviews.

Grading Scheme: This deliverable is graded based on completeness, i.e., you will receive 100% if you interviewed and followed up with 6-8 unique target users (who are not students in the course), and have completed at least 6 informational interviews and at least 3 prototype evaluations with these target users. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Final Prototype (PO2a):

All the work over the term cumulates to a final, high fidelity prototype produced by each team. The prototype should contain features that are effective at addressing the problem at hand, is usable and aesthetically appealing.

Grading Scheme: The final prototype is graded out of 12 based on a rubric. Different from the rest of the deliverables, the final prototype is not graded by your theme's TA, but by a random TA. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Demo Video (PO2b):

Each team will create a 3 min video demonstrating your final product (i.e., high-fi prototype). You should have supporting comments in the video to explain what is being shown. You can also include any other aspects of work you have done, if you would like to and if time on the video allows you (for example, your paper prototype to show the progression of the design). To see some examples of hi-fi prototype demo videos, visit the CS449 Spring 2019 website (click on "Project").

Grading Scheme: The demo video is graded out of 12 based on a rubric. Different from the rest of the deliverables, the demo video is not graded by your theme's TA, but by a random TA. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Final Presentation (PO2c):

The final presentation will be a poster+demo presentation. The poster must be smaller than 5 feet by 4 feet, and must include a title and team name, and sections that describe the entire design process you went through to create your app. Include a lot of screenshots/photos in the poster, and make sure that the text is readable even for people who are standing slightly far away. Leverage the poster to help you give a compelling presentation. The presentation should be 10 minutes long, describing the following:

Introduce Your Problem (suggested duration: 1 mins). What problem is your app trying to solve?

Describe Your Process (suggested duration: 2 mins). Who are your target users? What was your approach to finding out about them? What did you find out? How many iterations of design did you go through? What are the features of the app? What design decisions did you have to make?

Show a Quick Demo (suggested duration: 2 mins). Show a live demo on the phone and talk about the features.

Name 3 Surprises (suggested duration: 2 minutes). What are 3 most surprising things you learned during the design process? These can be your assumptions about the users, the problem, or the design that ended up being false.

Your Hope for the Future (suggested duration: 3 minute). Do you think your app solves the problem? Would your app work in the real world? Why or why not? How can it be extended to more vulnerable populations? What is your business model is you were to make this a real-world technology for social good?

Grading Scheme: The presentation is graded out of 50, 10 for attending other teams' presentations (providing feedback and participating in discussions), 20 for the quality of the poster (visual design, readability, content), 20 for the presentation based on a rubric, taking into account feedback provided by students and/or the instructor. Different from the rest of the deliverables, the final presentation is not graded by your theme's TA, but by a random TA or the instructor. There will be guest judges (e.g., other professors, GreenHouse) attending your final presentation, and bonus marks will be given to the team with the best presentation/poster, as voted by the guest judges and other students. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


Design Portfolio (PO2d):

Create a design portfolio---in the form of an interactive website or a blog post---that documents your entire design process. This is simply a polished version of the design notebook, where you have addressed all the feedback from the TAs / instructors. The design portfolio should be self-contained and of an appropriate length. You can embed the demo into the design portfolio as well.


In the design portfolio, you should include carefully chosen visuals (e.g., images of the artifacts from your design activities) and describe the following:

(1) Describe your value proposition and project goal

  • Describe the general market segment you are targeting, potential contributions you see as important for the area, what potential value you are bringing to the area, what problems / empty niches you originally identified and how your project addressed them.
  • Describe what specific problems you focused on for your project

(2) Product anticipated users

  • Describe user groups you have identified for your product and include personas / empathy maps you have created.

(3) User Interviews

  • Describe your interviewees in general terms (number, average age, gender distribution, other demographic information important for your study)
  • Describe the methods you used to conduct and analyze the user interviews (e.g., interview questions, affinity diagramming, work models)
  • Report on interview results: describe and discuss identified themes and detailed results, problems (breakdowns) you identified and decided to focus on.

(4) Initial design ideas

  • Discuss how you came up with the initial set of features (e.g., user stories, storyboarding), and what specific information from the user interviews you used in your initial design
  • Include sketches, user flows and images of your paper prototypes

(5) Paper prototypes and evaluation

  • Describe the goals and hypotheses you have formulated for your paper prototype evaluation study
  • Describe the set of tasks you gave to your participants
  • Report on paper prototype evaluation results: describe and discuss identified themes and detailed results, your analysis of possible reasons for identified problems in design.

(6) Design Iteration

  • Describe design changes you have identified as required based on paper prototype evaluation results, provide corresponding reasoning. Include screenshots of your evolving design.

(7) High fidelity prototypes and evaluation

  • Describe goals you have formulated for your high fidelity prototype evaluation study
  • Describe the results of heuristic evaluation: which heuristics were used and why, which tasks you gave to your participants, report on results
  • Describe the results of cognitive walkthrough: which tasks you gave to the participants, report on results
  • Report on design changes that are required to improve the prototype based on the hi-fi evaluation

(8) Conclusion

  • Reflect on design process you went through and to include you final thoughts on the project (e.g., do you think your app has sufficiently addressed the problems you set out to solve at the beginning of the term? What would you do differently if you could re-do this project again?)

Grading Scheme: The design portfolio is graded out of 20 based on a rubric. Different from the rest of the deliverables, the design portfolio is not graded by your theme's TA, but by a random TA. Each team member's individual grade will be adjusted based on their contribution, i.e., each student will receive the team's grade if they contributed to the activity, 0 otherwise.


CS649 Additional Requirements


Research Proposal (R1, R2):

Students taking CS649 are expected to learn, through assigned reading, at least two different types of HCI methodologies, and individually produce a report that describes the design of two studies, one per methodology, to investigate research questions related to their CS449/649 project/application, and provide a convincing argument on how and why these questions can be appropriately answered by the corresponding methodology/study design. The report should be at least 6 pages, using this overleaf template (use sample-sigconf.tex).

The research proposal should contain the following sections:
  1. Introduction - describe what research questions may be interesting to ask given the application that you designed,
  2. Related Work - conduct a literature review of prior work related to your research questions,
  3. System Description - describe your app, including its functionalities and rationale behind its design
  4. Research Questions - Describe 2 different research questions you can potentially ask in the form of hypotheses. Describe what you expect the results to be and why.
  5. Study Design - For each research question, describe the design of a study for answering that research question. Explain why your chosen HCI methodologies is appropriate for the research question. Describe in as much details as possible how you would go about conducting the study---e.g., what type of participants would you recruit? how many? what procedure would the participant follow? what survey/interview questions might you ask participants before and after the study.
Grading Scheme: The research draft will be graded out of 1 based on completion. The final research proposal is graded out of 16 based on a rubric.