Penalties for Late Submissions and Heuristic Evaluation

Late Submission Policies

Penalties for Late Submissions

·Late submission of any item of coursework for each day or part thereof (or for hard copy submission only, working day or part thereof) for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules at Levels 0, 4, 5, 6 submitted late (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework), will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches or is 40. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40, no lateness penalty will be applied.

·Late submission of referred coursework will automatically be awarded a grade of zero (0).

·Coursework (including deferred coursework) submitted later than five days (five working days in the case of hard copy submission) after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0).

·Where genuine serious adverse circumstances apply, you may apply for an extension to the hand-in date, provided the extension is requested a reasonable period in advance of the deadline.

Your mission

You have been given the job of performing an initial heuristic evaluation based on representative tasks that users may engage with on the site.

The representative tasks are:

1.Find the physical address of the museum.

2.Find out what the opening hours for the museum are on a Saturday.

3.Find out if the museum has a gift shop and if so do they have any items below 20 euros in price?

To do this, you must base your work on Unit 8.3 i.e. use the heuristics identified there and adopt the approach set out in the ‘Reporting’ section. For each task you must identify which heuristic or heuristics have been transgressed making it clear which heuristic each transgression refers to. As this is a limited evaluation, you must identify a MAXIMUM of SIX transgressions in total for all three tasks.

Based on your findings, you must then make ONE recommendation of the most important change to make in future design and development work.

Identifying transgressions (6 marks)

Note the limit of 6 transgressions means that only the first 6 transgressions will be marked if you submit more than 6.

For each transgression identified

No transgression submitted, or contains no relevant information Relevant transgression submitted Relevant and justified transgression submitted

Recommendation (4 marks)

Marks are awarded for the choice of recommendation and its justification.

Choice of recommendation (2 marks)

No recommendation submitted, or contains no relevant information

A relevant recommendation has been made, but it lacks clarity and / or detail. It would need further interpretation or the input of evaluator (you) before being implemented.

Clear relevant recommendation that provides sufficient clarity and detail to guide the required re-design or development work. Minimal interpretation may be required e.g. cross-referencing the relevant heuristics that were transgressed Clear relevant recommendation that provides sufficient clarity and detail for re-design or development work

would make a positive material impact on the usability of the site. It is provided with sufficient clarity and detail for re-design or development work.

Justification of recommendation (2 marks)

No submission, or no relevant justification.

Little relevant justification. The justification may not be clearly based on the heuristics transgressed and may include opinions or personal preferences.

Justification provided is based on transgressions identified. It may not provide a compelling justification, but the link between the heuristics transgressed and the recommendation is evident. Justification is clearly and systematically based on the relevant transgressions identified. The ideas behind the heuristics transgressed inform the justification consistently Additionally, the severity of the transgressions is also considered to further justify the recommendation.

Compelling justification that systematically sets out why the recommendation is being made. The ideas behind the heuristics transgressed and the ideas behind them consistently inform the justification. The severity of the transgressions is systematically taken into account.