Background information

The following assignment comes from a course on Web Publishing by the Faculty of Education at the University of Southern Queensland in Australia, and was designed by Kaye Cleary. It is reprinted here in full with the author's, and USQ's, permission.

The target audience is students in post-graduate courses in education, particularly students of Educational Technology and Online Education.

The aim of the assignment is to get learners to critique the design of a range of web sites in order to learn the principles of good web site design. This is the second of four assignments in the whole course, which is done part-time over a 16-week period.

In later assignments, learners will build their own web sites, bearing in mind the principles of web site design they learnt from this assignment.

Please note: there are several inactive links in the assignment description below. The links have been left in to show what kind of supporting documentation was developed to accompany the assignment description.

The assignment: Critique of Web Site Design

Introduction

This assignment aims to reflect the objectives for Module 2. A critique of web design is two-pronged. How does the site correlate with evidence-based design recommendations, and how does it attract and maintain the interest of potential site users?

The first consideration requires familiarity with the literature base. Importantly it goes beyond 'rules of thumb' design lists, delving into a research base.

The second revisits the concept of 'stickiness'. How does the site resonate with its intended audience?

This assignment is divided into two parts. Working in a small group to consider aspects of site design, followed by an individual submission outlining your own critique of the design attributes of one site. The knowledge gained from working through the material and activities will be used to critically analyze Web sites within the context of planning your own major site for Assignment 4.

Administrative Details

This two-part assignment is to be submitted as a single document:

  • is worth 25% of the final grade - Part A (10%) plus Part B (15%);
  • should adhere to the word range of 1400 - 1600 words - Part A (500 words) plus Part B (1,000 words);
  • should be guided by the assessment criteria (available in Word (*.doc) and rich text format (*.rtf).

The Task: Part A - Gather Data in Small Working Groups

  1. Join a Group by 'signing up' via the link on the home page. This will give you access to a group discussion area. [Aim to join an existing group unless you have a particular reason to start another. The Group names include one of the web sites that the Group will include in their critiques - see point 4 below.]
  2. Each member will negotiate a specialist role. Roles recommended include: standards (quality of code and adherence to accessibility prioirities; browser checks); assistive technologies; navigation and orientation; layout; use of media (including text). These roles align directly with the individual submission (Part B) of Assignment 2. Negotiate specialist roles so that they suit both the individual member and the Group's needs.
  3. Negotiate expectations of specialists bearing in mind the written work required from this Group process and course netiquette guidelines.
  4. Identify a site from each of the three categories. Each specialist will provide a report on the three sites for the Group.
  5. Discuss the implications of the specialists' reports. Your aim is to feel comfortable that you have sufficient information for you to undertake a holistic critique of one of the three sites (or another from the list below if you prefer). Please participate in these discussions. You may well find that others will have different views on various aspects of these sites to those held by yourself.

Select one web site from each of the three categories listed below:

Commercial Sites

Information Sites

Educational / Instructional Sites

Your Working Group should have ONE example each of a 'commercial', an 'informational' and an 'educational/instructional' site.

Assessment Submission of Your Contribution to Group Learning

Your goal is to demonstrate the quality of your contributions to the learning process. To do this, you will provide evidence of your contribution to the collaborative efforts of the group's learning for assessment.

The process: Identify 4 discussion postings from the Group which you believe represent your best contributions to the Group's learning. Copy those postings (verbatim, including date/time of posting) into a word document. Then, write a brief rationale and justification which demonstrates the quality of those postings.

The product: A brief report consisting of 4 discussion postings and your rationale for using them as exemplars of your collaborative activity as a member of the Group learning community. This should not exceed 500 words (excluding discussion postings).
 
Marking Criteria

Your submission will be marked according to your ability to:

Demonstrate evidence of high quality discussion contributions (weighted at 80%). This involves explicit linking between the characteristics of high quality discussion contributions and your discussion postings (which should be included in the piece). Make a clear case which demonstrates the value of your contributions to the Group learning community.

High quality postings demonstrate several of the following in a single posting:

  • Timeliness of responses (usually within 48 hours, less is better) - demonstrated by including the previous posting to which you are responding
  • Evidence of consideration of issues presented in previous postings
  • Demonstrate social presence and/or peer support including, but not limited to:emotion, empathy, personal connection, and commonality
  • Integration or synthesis of ideas from a variety of sources
  • An economy of language i.e. succinct, but meaningful writing
  • 'Questioning' postings which invite responses and so continue the conversation
  • Offering suggestions, especially where these are linked to questions from the ongoing discussion
  • Efforts to make meaning and refine current understandings:
    • seeking clarification
    • restating information
    • offering tentative interpretations
    • confirming others' statements
    • identification of helpful resources

Please refer to these characteristics when building a case for the quality of your contributions to the Group learning community. Present your case succinctly, in an appropriate written form (20%). Consider sentence structure, paragraph structure, overall assignment structure, word usage, style, tone, formatting and layout, referencing conventions and mechanics (spelling, punctuation etc).

Word Limit for Part A 
500 words. Please note that adherence to the word limit +/-10% is a consideration within the assessment criteria.

The Task: Part B - Individual Submission

When analyzing your selected site, ensure that you comment on these key areas:

  1. The sites' overall goals and how the site successfully achieves (or fails to achieve) its goal
  2. The anticipated target audience (how the design (not the content) accommodates this audience)
  3. Information and/or services offered [very brief]
  4. In relation to the above areas: layout of key elements (navigation icons, text, etc.) navigational structure use of media elements
  5. Compliance with accessibility guidelines
  6. Potential problems for user interaction

Essential in this type of analysis is explaining what you have learnt from reviewing each site, particularly in relation to the literature. It is imperative that this exercise does not digress into an analysis of the content of the site, but focuses on the above areas to develop your understanding of Web design issues. (In Assignment 3 you will be asked to apply this understanding to the design of your own web site.)

Format 
Your report/paper must follow appropriate conventions for an academic paper with full referencing. The use of 'bullet points', tables, appendices and headings are consistent with this format.

The Harvard or APA referencing styles are preferred by the Faculty of Education. While other styles may be used they MUST be applied consistently and comprehensively. The Library's online referencing guide at http://www.usq.edu.au/library/help/referencing/ is recommended as you primary resource on these referencing styles.
 
Please ensure you include your name and student number on your paper. A target of 1,500 words (within a range of 1,400 – 1,600 words) for Parts A and B is to be your aim. Part A approximately 500 words, plus Part B of approximately 1,000 words. Marks will be deducted when submissions (excluding appendices and reference list) are outside this range. Each 10% outside the range will loose 10% of the total marks available. Eg. 1600 + 150 words will reduce your overall marks by 10%.

Exemplars

While work from earlier classes naturally reflect the assessment criteria from earlier classes, you may find examples of this assignment of use:
2005 - Assignment by LS (Word *.doc and Rich Text *.rtf)
2005 - Assignment by FZ (Word *.doc and Rich Text *.rtf)

Note: Exemplars as Indicators of Format and Style

Please use the exemplars principally as indicators of format and style... a demonstration of integrating a practical activity of critiquing a web site, with a theoretical activity of demonstrating familiarity with the research-based literature.

As you read these exemplars, ask yourself what techniques the authors used to demonstrate their familiarity with research-based web design principles and illustrate how they applied this knowledge to critiquing the web site design. (Keep in mind that web sites are dynamic - the design of the site may have changed since these critiques.)

Reflection

  1. Can you explain how this assignment illustrates the following:
    1. How an assignment can promote constructive participation in the discussion forum;
    2. How group collaboration in the early stages of an assignment can provide a foundation for individual work in the later stages;
    3. How one assignment can provide the scaffolding for later assignments; and
    4. How students' work from previous courses can be used as exemplars to support current students.
  2. Can you think of ways you might be able to apply this kind of approach to assignments in your course?
  3. What would you do if a student e-mailed you to tell you that one member of his/her group was not contributing or was causing difficulties for the others through late submissions?
  4.  Do you think using such an approach to assignments with your students would require more of your time, or less? If your answer is more, would you be prepared to spend this extra time?

If possible, discuss the case study and questions with your colleagues to see whether there might be any benefit to trying a collaborative assignment with students at your institution.