High-Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
FIT3175 Usability
Submission - High-Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation
Overview
There are three parts to this assignment:
● Part 1: design a high-fidelity prototype
● Part 2: conduct a heuristic evaluation of your prototype and;
● Part 3: discuss your evaluation and recommendations for fixes as a group
Part 1: High fidelity prototype (GROUP TASK)
In this stage, you will come back together as a group to design a high-fidelity interactive
prototype based on your low-fidelity prototype screens. You can share your sketches from
Submission 2 and discuss their benefits and limitations. Decide on a final sketch idea
derived from different requirements of the solution and design a high-fidelity interactive
prototype using Figma.
Please be aware that Figma is the only prototyping tool that will be accepted to complete this
assignment deliverable.
The Week 9 tutorial provides a brief introduction to Figma. More information on how to use
Figma can be found in Figma’s help and documentation page here.
The prototype will include:
● A high-fidelity interactive prototype. The number of screens will consist of 2 screens
per group member (e.g. 6 screens for groups of 3, 8 screens for groups of 4, etc.),
but one of the screens MUST BE the home screen (do not include a login screen
assume the user is already logged in). All team members should collaborate on
all screens in Figma (ie. it should not be a case of one person doing two screens
by themselves, another person doing two other screens by themselves and so on).
● The prototype should involve at least 2 different previously defined requirements
(either from the assignment brief or from your user analysis submission 1) and it
should be at least 2 layers/screens deep for each requirement (see diagram
below).
Figure 1: Layer structure showing depth of navigation layers/screens for two different
requirements.
● Make sure you think about the application of guidelines, principles and theories (any
from the unit e.g. navigation and menu guidelines, visual principles, Norman’s
principles, Shneiderman’s 8 Golden Rules, etc...) you have learned throughout the
unit, as well as your personas, user stories and storyboards. Each screen should
have one unique design guideline or principle applied (these should not include
accessibility principles as those will be assessed separately).
● Your prototypes should consider at least 3 accessibility elements as part of the
design, and how they comply with 3 different WCAGs (accessibility guidelines).
These accessibility guidelines should be in addition to the other general design
guidelines and principles.
● The prototype must be interactive. The interaction includes navigation between the
screens, and the navigation within a screen through interacting with UI elements
such as buttons and lists that are relevant to the chosen requirements.
● You do NOT need to include advanced scripting such as data processing or
calculation.
● Each screen should reflect a close-to-final version of the user interface. Screens
must include click interactions to facilitate navigation between screens.
Report:
You also need to write a report about your prototype and your design process, decisions and
accessibility considerations (more details below).
Note: make sure you use images/pictures with no copyright restrictions. All images
sourced online must be referenced in the report.
Part 2: Prototype Evaluation (INDIVIDUAL TASK)
Is your prototype solution to the problem a success? Is it a good solution? Does it have good
usability? In order to assess the usability of your design, each member of the team,
independently, will perform a Heuristic Evaluation following Neilsen’s 10 heuristics model.
● For each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics, you will identify one example, which is either a
compliance or a violation. You must identify at least two violations in your
evaluation.
For your violations:
(a) Provide the severity rating between 1 and 4 (0 means no violation).
Remember: severity is rated by taking into account the following factors that
contribute to the severity of a problem: its frequency of occurrence
(common/encountered by many users or rare/encountered by only a few
users); its impact on users (easy or hard to overcome), and its persistence
(does it need to be overcome once or repeatedly). Though you are doing this
individually so the frequency may be difficult to determine (as you cannot
survey a large number of users), you can still make assumptions about how
common the problem is from previous experiences and mention this in your
evaluation.
(b) Provide a recommendation that will address the problems related to the
violations and significantly improve the usability of the product.
(c) Explain how the design choices involved in your prototype support the
compliances you found.
Report: You also need to write your individual evaluation as part of the report (more details
below).
Part 3: Evaluation Summary (GROUP TASK, included in
Part 1 marks)
● After you have all done your individual heuristic evaluations, write a brief
analysis/summary of your group’s three most severe violations and recommended
fixes (more details below).
Submission 3 - Deliverables
Compile your work from Submission 3 deliverables into a single document. The final
document should contain:
1. High fidelity interactive prototype (group report, max 1000-1200 words for
groups of 2-3 or 1200-1700 words for groups of 4-5, excluding images. This
word count also includes the group evaluation summary and overall report
conclusion):
a. A link to where the team’s interactive Figma prototype can be tested online
(must be viewable to anyone at Monash with the link - if the grading TA
does not have access to your prototype then there will be a 5% penalty).
b. Nominate 1 design guideline/principle per screen and justify how it has
been applied to your designs. These guidelines/principles should be drawn
from a wide variety of the unit material. You also need to explain how 3
WCAGs have been applied across your prototype.
c. Provide at least ONE change per group member your team made to improve
ideas from the Submission 2 prototypes, and explain the reason for each
change and improvement based on the different principles/theories discussed
in this unit. Clearly state where these changes have been made by showing
the screenshots of the low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes for comparison
and clearly mark these changes in both screenshots.
Note: Justifications can make use of any guidelines discussed during
the semester such as guidelines for navigation, menus, graphics,
colour, icons, typography, grouping and accessibility...
2. Heuristic Evaluation Results (individual report, 500-700 words max excluding
images and compliance/violation tables):
a. A summary table of compliances – a summary of compliance instances,
including the heuristic rule number, and the evidence, as shown below
(include annotated screenshots).
# Instance of Compliance Heuristic
Rule
Evidence Design choices justification
1 Here you need to provide a
very brief description of the
instance and how it is
compliant with the rule (a
phrase, not a sentence)
rule number,
e.g. #3
Here you need to
provide the figure
number and its caption
(e.g. Figure 1…
below). You could
include more than one
figure details.
Your justification of why this
instance is compliant with the
Heuristic Rule.
2
Table 1: A summary of compliance instances
b. A summary table for violations – a summary of heuristic violation instances,
including the heuristic rule number, evidence, severity ratings, and
recommendations to address the problem, in a table as shown below (include
annotated screenshots).
# Instance of Violation Heuristic Rule Evidence Severity
Rating
Recommendation
1 Here you need to provide a
very brief description of the
instance and how it violates
the rules (a phrase, not a
sentence).
The rule
number e.g. #3
Here you need to
provide an
annotated
screenshot. You
could include
more than one
figure details.
A severity
rating e.g. 2
Here you provide a very
brief description of the
recommendation (a
phrase, not a sentence)
2
Table 2: A summary of violations and recommendations
Figure 1 - example of compliance/violation…
Note: Your evaluation must address all 10 of Nielsen’s heuristics. You may have any
combination of compliances and violations as long as at least 2 violations are identified. You
must identify one unique example per heuristic, ie. the same example/element cannot be
used for multiple heuristics.
c. A description of the violations identified and justification for the severity
ratings and recommendations.
Overall report conclusion: discussing, summarising and highlighting the main
points/recommendations and the key findings of evaluating your high-fidelity prototypes, ie.
what your group considers to be the 3 most important/severe violations and suggest detailed
recommendations on how to fix these problems moving forward.
Report Format:
Title Page
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Group Work - Prototype
a. Link to Figma prototype (accessible by the grading TA)
b. Screenshots of all prototype screens
c. Description and justification of one design guideline implemented per
screen
d. Description and justification of three accessibility guidelines
implemented throughout the prototype
e. Description and justification of one change made per team member
from the low fidelity prototype to the high fidelity prototype
3. Individual Work - Heuristic Evaluation
a. Summary tables of compliances
b. Summary tables of violations
c. Detailed description of violations and justification of severity ratings
4. Conclusion (for prototype/overall evaluation findings)
a. Mention challenges faced during design process
b. Discuss here the 3 most severe violations and recommendations for
fixes
5. References (if any)
6. Appendix
a. Personas/User Stories/Low fidelity prototype screens used from
previous submissions (including any explanation of modifications
made, eg. based on submission 1/2 feedback)
Submission Guidelines
You will upload and submit your assignment report as a PDF document to Moodle.
You MUST also submit your report to Turnitin that is included in the submission link.
The name of the report file should follow this format: FIT3175Subm4-GroupNumber
A task allocation form and a peer evaluation will be completed by team members for the
submission. This allows each team member and the teaching team to analyse team
performance and contribution in group tasks.
Ensure that the Figma link you provide is accessible by everyone with the link so that we can
grade your prototype. If we cannot access your prototype, then there will be a 5%
penalty.
Submission Due Date
This assignment is due at 11.55pm, Friday 7th June (Week 14).
Late Submissions
Late Assignments or extensions will not be accepted unless you submit a special
consideration form and provide valid documentation such as a medical certificate prior to the
submission deadline (NOT after). Otherwise, there will be a 10% penalty per day
including the weekends.
Plagiarism - PLEASE NOTE.
Before submitting your assignment, please make sure that you have not breached the
University plagiarism and cheating policy. It is the student's responsibility to make
themselves familiar with the contents of these documents.