AS92006 - Demonstrate understanding of usability in human-computer intera
|
Achievement Standard: AS92006
Version: 3 Time Given: Examination at end of Year. |
Level 1
Credits: 5 Assessment Medium: Online |
Usability Heuristics Examination
While we don't have the full Information about the exam, here is what we do know:
- The exam will take place in term 4
- You will be required to study and memorize your own human-computer interface for the exam. You might be able to take in prepared screenshots for this exam (5 in the 2023 exam).
- You will be provided a video of another interface for the exam
- You will be given the list of Neilsons Usability Heuristics
- You will be given a list of Mātāpono Māori
- You will have the choice to evaluate interfaces in terms of either Neilsons Usability Heursitics or Mātāpono Māori
- You should be aiming to write 800 words for the examination
- Internet access or access to other resources will not be permitted.
Grading
For Achieved:
- describe the purpose of human-computer interfaces
- describe usability principles and their use in human-computer interfaces
- explain the usability of human-computer interfaces in terms of usability principles.
- explain how usability principles have been applied in human-computer interfaces.
- compare the usability of human-computer interfaces
- apply usability principles to suggest improvements to human-computer interface usability.
Video Resource
|
As an example you will likely be given a video like the one of the right as a resource.
Last year's video was on Trade Me Last year you were allowed to take in 5 screenshots from the video to help with your explanations |
|
Resources:
|
Exam answer booklet from last year. Marking schedule for the exam with examples. |
| ||||||||||||
Common Issues:
Grade awarding Candidates who were awarded
Achievement commonly:
• described the purpose of an interface they have studied
• identified and described at least one distinct usability heuristic or mātāpono Māori for each of the three activities
• illustrated their responses with at least one screenshot.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
• clearly explained how the application of heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori improved the usability of the interface
• suggested improvements to interfaces but did not justify these by explaining how they could improve usability, or did not refer to heuristics in their explanation. Candidates who were awarded
Achievement with Excellence commonly:
• showed a comprehensive understanding of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• identified multiple similarities and differences between the interfaces in terms of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• indicated which interface applied usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori more effectively, and gave reasons supporting their evaluation
• suggested multiple improvements to each interface in terms of usability heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori
• justified improvements by explaining how they would enhance usability.
Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved commonly:
• misidentified usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• described the interface activity but omitted references to usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• did not identify more than three usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• did not address numerous questions and left them unanswered.
Achievement commonly:
• described the purpose of an interface they have studied
• identified and described at least one distinct usability heuristic or mātāpono Māori for each of the three activities
• illustrated their responses with at least one screenshot.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
• clearly explained how the application of heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori improved the usability of the interface
• suggested improvements to interfaces but did not justify these by explaining how they could improve usability, or did not refer to heuristics in their explanation. Candidates who were awarded
Achievement with Excellence commonly:
• showed a comprehensive understanding of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• identified multiple similarities and differences between the interfaces in terms of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• indicated which interface applied usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori more effectively, and gave reasons supporting their evaluation
• suggested multiple improvements to each interface in terms of usability heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori
• justified improvements by explaining how they would enhance usability.
Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved commonly:
• misidentified usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• described the interface activity but omitted references to usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• did not identify more than three usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
• did not address numerous questions and left them unanswered.
