INFO90004 Assignment 3 - Take-Home
Exam (Individual) – Semester 1, 2024
Instructions
• This is a take-home, individual assignment. It requires approximately 30 hours of work.
• This assignment represents 40% of your final assessment.
• There are two questions.
• We have shown the points value for each question and sub-question (Q1 20 points, Q2 20
points).
• Start each question on a new page. You must clearly indicate which question you are
answering at the start of the page.
• There is a generous word limit for each question. Words more than 10% beyond the upper
limit will not be assessed. Reference lists are not included in this word limit.
• The overall word count for each question must be included at the end of the answer to each
question (Q1, Q2).
• You should answer each question in words; however, you may sketch diagrams or other
images to help clarify your point. Your answer must make sense – it’s not enough to just list
some words, you need to explain what you mean.
• You may use any reference materials to assist you in answering the questions. However, all
submitted work must comply with university policy on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism
(http://academichonesty.unimelb.edu.au/). In particular, note that material generated by
artificial intelligence software or large language models (in whole or in part) is not
permitted and will be reported as misconduct.
• Referenced material must be clearly cited in the body of the text. References may be listed
at the end of the answer to each question or in a single list at the end of the exam paper.
• The word count should not include the list of references or contents of figures.
• Submit the file to Turnitin via the LMS by Tuesday 4th June 2023 at 11:59 pm, Melbourne
time. (Note that this is a fixed time; we will apply penalties for late submissions). You may
resubmit once, as long as it is before the deadline.
Assessment Criteria
Each question will be assessed according to the following criteria:
Relevance Is the answer relevant to the question?
Completeness Does the response answer the question fully?
Insight Does the response demonstrate critical thought and analysis?
Clarity Is the response clearly structured, well written and logical?
Breadth Does the response make appropriate use of a variety of scholarly
literature?
Page 2 of 11
Question 1 – 20 marks
You have been engaged to redevelop the website for Breads N Spreads, a website for
people who like to eat toast. Included on the next seven pages are some reports from a
Treejack study and an eyetracking study that one of your colleagues created in Optimal
Workshop.
Based on the information shown in these reports, please provide the following
information.
Part A – 3 marks
As far as possible, recreate the structure of the website as it was when the test was run.
Is your information complete or partial?
You can present this information visually (e.g., in a diagram) or in a table or nested list.
Please do not try to draw wireframes or designs of the site!
Part B – 6 marks (300-600 words)
On pages 8-9, you can see a heatmap of the wireframe diagrams that your colleague
developed for the site’s homepage. The text that is not in English is placeholder text to
show that there would be text here; it doesn’t mean anything.
Propose two changes to the wireframes to improve the experience of navigating the
website. Justify your choices using appropriate theories from HCI.
You can draw on one or more of the diagrams or replicate them to show the issue and
your proposed solution, but you should also describe and justify your recommendations
in text.
Issue Recommendation Justification
1. Describe the issue here
2. Describe the issue here
Part C – 3 marks (150-300 words)
Name two pieces of information that you learned from the eye tracking data (heatmaps)
that you could not learn from the Treejack study. Explain why this information was not
available in Treejack.
Part D – 8 marks (400-800 words)
A junior colleague developed this research, including the site structure and the
questions and tasks for each study. What is the most important advice you would give
them to improve these aspects of their work in future? Justify your answer.
You should give two recommendations each for the tree structure and for the questions
and tasks (study design). You do not have to rate the severity of the issue but you should
clearly describe what the problem is and your recommended solution.
You can present your answer in a table or in text form.
Issue Recommended solution
Site structure 1. Describe the issue here
2. Describe the issue here
Questions &
tasks
1. Describe the issue here
2. Describe the issue here
Page 3 of 11
Treejack Pie Tree results: Buy a jar of chilli jam
Page 4 of 11
Treejack Pie Tree results: Your sibling really likes peanut butter but they have just become allergic to nuts. Can you find an alternative for them?
Page 5 of 11
Treejack Pie Tree results: Find a good recipe for crumpets
Page 6 of 11
Treejack Pie Tree results: You have got some bread stuck in the toaster. What could you use to get it out?
Page 7 of 11
Treejack Survey
Q1: How old are you? (radio button)
Answer Percentage Frequency
18-25 10.5% 4
25-50 52.6% 20
51-65 31.6% 12
Over 65 5.3% 2
Q2: Do you like toast? (radio button)
Answer Percentage Frequency
Yes 86.8% 33
No 13.2% 5
Q3: How much do you like toast? (Likert item)
Answer Percentage Frequency
Strongly agree 28.9% 11
Moderately agree 39.5% 15
Neutral 2.6% 1
Moderately disagree 7.9% 3
Strongly disagree 21% 8
Post-study question: What is your favourite flavour of jam? (free text)
I hate jam
Apricot aka stone fruit
Raspberry
Strawberry
Plum
apricot
raspberry
Apricot
fig jam
Raspberry
Cherry
Raspberry
None, I hate Jam
Orange ginger
Raspberry Seedless
Apricot
Fig
Apricot
Marmalade
Strawberry
Fig
raspberry
Raspberry
red currant
Blackberry
Strawberry
Boisonberry
Raspberry
Boysenberry
apricot
Strawberry
Raspberry
Raspberry
Raspberry
Apricot
rasberry
Peach
Apricot
Page 8 of 11
Heatmap: First view of the website
Heatmap: Where would you find a recipe for making bread?
Page 9 of 11
Heatmap: Where would you find out more about one of these toasters?
Page 10 of 11
Question 2 – 20 marks (1000-1200 words)
You are required to write a critical review of a (supplied) article reporting findings from
an HCI study. Please refer to the LMS to see which article you should review. If you cannot
find this information, please email Melissa immediately!
Your review should address the following questions.
a. What is the aim of the project described in the article? (1 mark)
b. What were its main findings? (2 marks)
c. What user research method/s were used in the article? (2 marks)
d. Who were the participants in the study? How were they recruited? Do you think
they were the right participants for this research? (2 marks)
e. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the method for UX practice and/or
research? What research is cited to support this method or the authors’ claims
about it? (5 marks)
f. Propose two alternate methods – one qualitative, one quantitative – that could
have been taken to pursue the aims of this project or learn more about usability
and user experience in this setting/of this technology (You should propose this
method – it will not be in the article).
For each proposed method, identify
o the method you would use,
o the type(s) of data that would be collected,
o how it would be analysed
o how the method could contribute to understanding of the project and/or
to the setting.
(8 marks)
Your review must be presented in your own words, and must critically engage with the
ideas presented, and not just summarise the key points of the article. It must
demonstrate some reading and analysis of scholarly literature beyond the set article.
You must make meaningful reference to at least five other HCI/UX publications from
scholarly sources. Suggested sources of references are available throughout the subject
LMS. You can also consult the references that are cited in your article or that were set as
readings for this subject.
You should structure your review around these key questions (by using the questions as
subheadings).
A critical review is very different from a book review. For more information about how
to write a critical review, see:
• https://www.monash.edu/rlo/quick-study-guides/writing-a-critical-review
• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe-writing-centre/critical-reading-and-writing/critical-
review
To write a critical review, you will need to read the selected article in detail. You will also
need to read other related texts. This will enable you to present a fair and reasonable
evaluation of the article.
Please use the American Psychological Association (APA 7th edition) referencing style,
described here: https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite
Page 11 of 11
Articles for Question 2
Look at which “Exam Paper Review” group you have been assigned to, to see which
article you should review. Remember that this is an individual task. The group you are
in is only to show you which paper you should review.
The papers are visible on the “Exam” assignment.
Exam Paper Review Paper A.
Xing, Y., Kelly, R. M., Rogerson, M. J., Waycott, J., & Aslam, K. 2024. Designing for
Inclusive Experiences: Investigating Opportunities for Supporting Older Adults in
Community-based Social Programs. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, Article 1011, 1-20. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641892
Exam Paper Review Paper B.
Zhao, W., Kelly, R.M., Rogerson, M.J. and Waycott, J. 2024. Older Adults Imagining
Future Technologies in Participatory Design Workshops: Supporting Continuity in the
Pursuit of Meaningful Activities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, Article 97, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641887
Exam Paper Review Paper C.
Freeman, S.O., Gibbs, M., and Nansen, B. 2023. Personalised But Impersonal: Listeners'
Experiences of Algorithmic Curation on Music Streaming Services. In Proceedings of the
2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '23). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 412, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581492
Exam Paper Review Paper D.
Martinez, J.J., Froehlich, J.E., and Fogarty, J. 2024. Playing on Hard Mode: Accessibility,
Difficulty and Joy in Video Game Adoption for Gamers with Disabilities. In Proceedings of
the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 524, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642804
Exam Paper Review Paper E.
Quadri, G.J., Wang, A.Z., Wang, Z., Adorno, J., Rosen, P. and Szafir, D.A. 2024. Do You See
What I See? A Qualitative Study Eliciting High-Level Visualization Comprehension. In
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '24).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 204, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642813