From CS294-10 Visualization Fa08
- Witton Chou
- Michael So
The problem is the inefficiency of current student assignment organization and planning. The current methods for assignment planning include: memorization, planner notebooks, post-its, frequently checking course websites where the assignments are posted, and web applications (e.g. bspace). These methods lack effective visual components that improve task efficiency. For example, memorization does not include the memory expansion benefits that a visualization inherently does. Although planner notebooks keep track of deadlines, it does not significantly improve organization and time allocation of assignments. Assignments are usually saved on individual pages so that when accessing those assignments at a later time, pages have to be flipped through; there is no overview provided of all the assignments. Also, assignments have some degree of importance, or priority. A notebook planner does not provide a way to quickly rank the assignments in order of priority other than flipping through pages and making a mental ranking. These disadvantages can be eradicated through the implementation of an interactive visualization. The features we plan to implement include an overview display of the assignments inputted, a ranking structure that suggests an order to complete assignments, and interactive/direct manipulation elements that will filter the display.
Witton Did A Survey
results summarized in slides
Michael Did A Qualitative Study
Michael did a heuristic evaluation on three solutions to assignment planning. Two were popular current solutions: a physical planner and Google Calendar. The third was a lo-fi prototype of our proposed solution. Three evaluators were involved. In each evaluation, Michael did the role of the observer, writing down the comments and problems each evaluator pointed out. The evaluators were told to look for usability problem as well as visualization problem pertaining to the task of assignment planning.
To assist the evaluators with evaluating the three different solutions, Michael provided a list of ten generic heuristics (written by Jakob Nielson) and a scenario. The scenario gave a list of courses and details of the assignments assigned from each course; its purpose was to give the evaluators an idea of what assignments to plan.
When all three evaluations were completed, Michael compiled a list of usability and visualization problems from the notes taken on each evaluation. Then Michael created a questionnaire for the evaluators to rate the severity of each problem. Once all three evaluators finished filling the questionnaire, Michael calculated the mean severity rating for each problem. When Michael calculated the mean, he took the floor of the mean; so if the scores were (3, 2, 3), the calculated mean is 3.
The severity scale used was:
- 0 = I don't agree that this is a problem at all
- 1 = Cosmetic problem: need not be fixed unless extra time is available on project
- 2 = Minor problem: fixing this should be given low priority
- 3 = Major problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority
- 4 = Catastrophe: imperative to fix this
The severity questionnaire can be viewed from clicking on this link: Media:Severity_Questionnaire.pdf
The mean severity rating for each problem can be seen from clicking on this link: Media:Severity_Means.pdf
We Did A Prototype
Flex 3 is the platform we chose to implement our solution.