Evaluation criteria: 50% Group project + 50% Individual
assignment
2016–
Individual Assignment 1. Investigate existing user
interfaces of software applications, websites, smartphones or any other
electronic product (like microwave oven, camera and so on). 2. Identify three problems with
existing user interfaces. Each problem needs to be associated with different
contexts or applications than the other two problems. 3. Explain the problem and propose a
solution. If possible, relate the problem with a human factor (like visual
search, rapid aiming movement, learning, memory and so on) 4. Plan a way to evaluate how your
proposed solution can be proven better than the existing user interface. 2014–
Individual Assignment § Assignment 1: Students identified three HCI problems in
electronic interfaces in their everyday use and related them to human
factors. §
Assignment
2:
Students wrote a critical review of a book
from Springer HCI series as their individual assignment. 2013
– Individual Assignment Students
wrote a critical review of a book
from Springer HCI series as their individual assignment. 2012 |
|
Sl No. |
Project Name |
Originality |
Quality |
Presentation |
Vision |
Total |
Feedback |
|
|
(in %) |
|
||||
1 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
90 |
81 |
Good
presentation, good idea and usability analysis plan, well written report, missed
a short literature survey or comparison to existing AR systems in report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
80 |
100 |
80 |
0 |
78 |
Well
planned study, good analysis Report
missed representative screenshots and future work section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
100 |
50 |
100 |
50 |
80 |
Interesting
idea, good presentation Authors
need to study the use of Snellen Chart in more detail, it can
not tell 'power' of eye, neither 20/20 rating while the user is
viewing from 1.2 mt distance. More emphasis should
be given on the framework and developing picture based charts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
10 |
10 |
40 |
0 |
18 |
The
literature survey failed to cite analysis of Fitts'
law and presented plenty of wrong information even those presented in lecture
notes. I refer authors to go through lecture notes on Fitts'
law and read papers referred to them in an earlier email communication. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
50 |
0 |
10 |
50 |
23 |
The
project proposes some new thoughts but it does not really report any formal
literature survey, nor any citations. The presentation is not good, same
piece of text was repeated in the first two pages and the writing needs more
internal review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
70 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
The
project presents an interesting idea and compared it with related work.
However neither the report nor the slides follow the specified format of
presentation. There is no discussion on usability issues except the screen
size, the other issues are more functionality oriented. Though it is going to
be an interesting project but at present it lacks both depth in quality and
maturity in presentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Plagiarised
from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mllee/docs/UbiComp229-lee.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
85 |
85 |
90 |
90 |
87 |
Nice
coverage and presentation though the report needs a better structure, perhaps
an explicit paragraph on structure of the document may help. Authors should
reduce number of quotations and put more analysis. Citations to some peer
reviewed recent papers would have enhanced the quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
10 |
0 |
50 |
40 |
22 |
The
project tries to introduce a new system but did not seem to think about any security
issues, e.g. in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
90 |
80 |
100 |
50 |
86 |
Good
evaluation, nice presentation but the report misses future plan of maintenance
and evaluation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|