CS 4753 Fall '96: Project Part 1

Project Grade Comments
ATM
evaluation		 9
  • Good analysis.
  • Formating of the questionnaire is a little confusing.
  • Question description and results need improvements.
    • BannerRegistration 8
  • Good observational data.
  • Questions need some improvement (be more specific and use 1 to 5 scales).
  • Should briefly describe the system first.
  • No evaluation criteria and task goals.
    • CareerServices 8
  • Good questions.
  • Should briefly describe the system first.
  • Usability tasks need more explanation on motivation and coverage.
    • CareerServices-
    Registration    		 9
  • Good job.
  • Unclear question/presentation at only a few places.
    • Co-opResume
    Questionnaire    		 9
  • Good job.
  • A little clearer explanation of evaluation tasks needed.
    • ELM 8
  • Good evaluation.
  • Need better organization.
  • Some questions are too general.
  • Results on tasks seem weird (an experienced user needs 2 mininutes to save a message).
    • GTTSS 9
  • Good presentation.
  • Good/thorough questions except one overlapping.
  • Evaluation goals need to be more clearly stated.
  • Should definitely not use people's real names in usability study.
    • Minesweeper 8
  • A screen image and a clean copy of the questionnaire would help in the report.
  • Need statistical summary of questionnaire responses.
  • Need actual measurable usability tasks.
  • Report makes early conclusions.
    • OSCAR 7
  • Report is hard to follow (eye-catching background in the HTML version, inserted data sheets/OSCAR bulletin in the hand-in version, unsmooth transitions between sections, etc.) Need spell checking.
  • Briefly explain the system first.
  • Need better, representative, tasks.
  • Task results not presented very well. Need quantitative analysis.
    • OSCAR-Web 6
  • Should briefly describe the system first, provide a link to the questionnaire, and proof-read the report.
  • Questionnaire results not presented well.
  • Lacking evaluation criteria and task goals.
  • Report makes early conclusions.
    • Solitaire 6
  • Should briefly describe the system first.
  • No pilot-testing/revisions.
  • No specific questions about specific features.
  • Questionnaire results not well presented.
  • Not clear what HCI evaluation criteria were implemented.
  • Tasks are too general, not concrete enough.
    • TotalScheduling 7
  • Good observational data.
  • No pilot-testing/revisions.
  • No quantitative data from questionnaires.
  • Most of the questions are quite general.
  • Missing evaluation criteria and task goals.
  • No link between the report and the questionnaires.
    • Win95Calculator 8
  • Good organization.
  • A screen image would be helpful in the report.
  • Should explain some tech. terms in the questionnaire better.
  • Main improvement would be better explanation on what motivated the conclusions.

    • Back to class home.