Design Rationale and User Models

This assignment requires students to create a design rationale that convinces the reader that their prototype should achieve a great user experience. The second half of the assignment involves documenting what has been learned about users, tasks, and contexts of use, and representing these learnings as a number of models. These models will support continued, iterative design of the interaction.

2017-2018
Submission details: see Hand-in of Reports (p1)
Module Learning Outcomes assessed in this piece of coursework
The learning outcomes for this piece of coursework are:
 Research user needs and the implications of technology for work practice
 Analyse users and their activities, and carry forward lessons learned
 Design input modalities, output media and interactive content to appeal to an audience
 Reflect upon design practice and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of alternative techniques
Assignment Brief and assessment criteria (these will be discussed within a formally timetabled class)
This piece of coursework has two halves – the Design Rationale convinces the reader than the prototype ought to achieve a great
user experience. The second half documents what you have learned about the users, tasks and contexts of use at hand, and
represents these learnings as a number of models. These models will support continued, iterative design of the interaction.
Design Rationale
The design rationale should emphasise your choice of solution (with reference to the evident user need). The motivation for the
redesign, and the desired qualities of experience that are sought (ease of use, engagement etc.) were established in the usability
test and problem definition, so there is no need to repeat that again. The new information is the choice of solution – a Tree
component rather than a menu structure, a link rather than a button.
Also, try to support your design decisions with references to specific design guidelines, and findings. Everyone has an opinion
about UI design, and everyone believes their opinion is right – to win the argument you need to quote authoritative sources that
persuade others that your decision is the correct one .e.g styleguides, textbooks, practitioner websites.
You will also need to select the most important issues to explain and emphasise. Like writing a summary,
Models

2017-2018
See the relevant slides on Analysis. These models should be useful summaries that support future work, and that reveal new
information and learnings about the design concerns.
For the task and object models I would suggest a relatively high level of analysis state the intended outcomes, and attributes, but
omit system specific details, such as particular modes of data entry, or individual user actions – see slides.
Example Structure Models Target Max Word Length 1,000words
1. Models
The contents of this section will reflect what you have learnt about your users, their tasks, the objects
they work with and the context of use. It will also reflect your ability to highlight and convey important and
unique characteristics of your topic to a professional audience.
1.1 Personas
1.2 User Journey
1.3. Hierarchical Tasks Analysis (how users conceive and sequence their goals)
1.4. Object Analysis (how users want to organise and view the information they work with)
1.5. Discussion. reflection on the selection and effectiveness of modelling and data gathering
techniques and tools. their strengths and: limitations etc., quality of evidence on which models are based,
future work,
Most topics will need models 1.1 – 1.4), Some specialist topics may require different models – please
talk to your module leader before.
Please see this section as documentation followed by discussion, rather than a report. Notes
alongside diagrams, and a brief introduction as to how the diagram was produced, is sufficient for 1.1-1.4.
Example Structure Design Report Target Max Word Length 2,500words
1. Design Process
Outline the stages of your design process, and the activities your carried out to advance your thinking. 500
words
2. Rationale
Select the most important changes you made. For each issue you address, explain why you solved
the problem this particular way –the questions posed, the alternative design options considered, and the

2017-2018
criteria used to select a preferred option. Support your argument with links back to evidence in your usability
test report, and with references to design guidelines and findings from the literature.
It is often necessary to explain a set of small changes together, rather than individually – problems and
constraints may be inter-related.
2.1 Issue A
2.2 Issue B
2.3 Issue C
3. Discussion reflection on areas of uncertainty, innovation and the unresolved/outstanding issues.
Relevance of literature and sources applied.
Feedback (including details of how and where feedback will be provided) As standard see p4
Further Guidance
Marking scheme

2017-2018
Section (max) Marks A (>35) B (30-34) C (25-29) D (20-
24)
F (<20)
Design Process
and Rationale
(50)
Convincing. Novel resolution.
Creative and imaginative.
Gives appropriate emphasis
to key issues. Clearly
identifies design questions,
alternative design options,
and criteria. Separates out
related issues, and weighs
factors and balances
considerations appropriately.
Supported by evidence and
references to guidelines.
Discussion of areas of
uncertainty/ outstanding
issues. Clear and Concise
Explicit and structured,
correctly applies best practice
solutions. Mostly supported by
design guidelines, models and
findings. Mostly robust and
reassuring. Some detailed
issues suggest loss of
balance and proportion.
Critical appraisal of prototype
could have been greater.
Increasing apparent simplicity
of complex issues. Soundly
expressed
The design is worked through
on paper, but somewhat
vaguely. Tends towards
variants of known solutions.
Tends to only describe how
interaction is carried out, and
why the change is needed and
not alternative design options).
Some issues are somewhat
convoluted and unnecessarily
intertwined. Focus and
perspective is lost at times. A
little wordy and unclear at times
Does not consider
relevant factors.
Reasoning is not fully
implicit. Tendency to be
unclear. Uninformed by
guidelines or existing
solutions. English
language errors obstruct
comprehension
Does not consider
relevant factors.
Increasingly
implausible. Does not
apply a user-centered
perspective.
In appropriate
simplification
Models (50) Appropriate selection, use
and and discussion of
alternative typesof model. Has
insights into users and their
behaviour as uniquely
involved in this problem.
Supported by evidence,
references and wider
reading, Excellent
presentation
Documents potentially
valuable, specific information
about users. Some empirical
details are included. The
typical range of models have
been used as suggested .
Good presentation
Information about users is
represented, but is not that
surprising. Awareness of
purpose of modelling is lacking.
Some necessary models
absent. Little empirical basis
Information about users
tends to be generic and
bland. Basis for
expectations is unclear
– tends towards pre-
judgement, rather than
integration of evidence
Contentious
assumptions and
speculation
Total
Strengths : Areas to Improve: