Week | Tuesday | Thursday |
1 |
January 17 Lecture: Course Introduction |
January 19 Lecture: The Role of Crits In class: P1 interim crit, reading discussion Due: P1 three ad mock-ups Read:Berkun on How to run a design Crit, Dow, et al. on Prototyping Dynamics |
2 |
January 24 Lecture: Identifying Problems In class: P1 final crit, reading discussion, P2 discussion Due: P1 final ads Read:Lohtia, et al. on factors that affect Web banner ad click-through rates |
January 26 Lecture: Needfinding In class: reading discussion, activities on analyzing social media and interviewing Read:Rolf Faste on Perceiving User Needs, Patnaik and Becker on the how and why of Needfinding, the Stanford d.school on Needfinding, Observing, and Idea Logs |
3 |
January 31 Lecture: Interviewing In class: P2 interim crit Due: P2 social media analysis, preliminary personas, and interview questions |
February 2 Lecture: Innovation In class: readings, P2 worksession Read:Buxton on Process, and Vogel, Cagan, and Boatwright on People Fueling Innovation |
4 |
February 7 Lecture: Synthesis In class: Readings discussion, P2 worksession (opportunity statements) Read:Kolko on abductive reasoning and synthesis techniques |
February 9 In class: P2 final crit Due: P2 needfinding presentations |
5 |
February 14 Lecture: Ideation In class: Readings discussion, ideation techniques, sketching exercises, P3 worksession Read:Diehl and Stroebe on Productivity Loss, Sutton and Hargadon on Brainstorming Groups in Context, and Stanford d.school on brainstorming |
February 16 Lecture: Crowdsourcing, part 1 In class: data analysis for P1 ad designs, Mechanical Turk tutorial, P3 worksession Read:IDEO's Concept Worksheet |
6 |
February 21 In class: P3 final crit Due: P3 ideation, synthesis, and 6 most promising directions Assign: P4: Mockups, |
February 23 Lecture: Storyboarding In class: reading discussion, sketching activities Read:Foss on Dramatic Structure, Davidoff et al. on Speed Dating |
7 |
February 28 In class: P4 interim crit Due: P4 rough storyboards for 6 concepts |
March 1 Lecture: Crowdsourcing, part 2 In class: reading discussion, tutorial on MindSwarms Read:Sherman's Guide to Crowdsourcing and Kittur et al. on Crowdsourcing User Studies |
8 |
March 6 In class: P4 final crit, P5 discussion Due: P4 final storyboards, results of online speed dating Assign: P5: Pitch your idea, |
March 8 Lecture: Crowdfunding In class: reading discussion Read:Gerber et al. on Crowdfunding, IndieGoGo's Ten hints on crowdfunding |
. |
March 13 Spring Break |
March 15 Spring Break |
9 |
March 20 Lecture: Crowdfunding part 2 In class: P5 interim crit Due: P5 rough script and storyboard for crowdfunding video |
March 22 In class: reading discussion, video production tutorial, P5 worksession Read:van Sijll on Film conventions, Aronson on using stills, using layers, and using croma key effects in final cut pro, Kirkman on Lighting for Interviews |
10 |
March 27 Lecture: Entrepreneurship In class: P5 interim crit #2 Due: P5 updated video script/storyboards and draft of crowdfunding campaign |
March 29 In class: P5 worksession |
11 |
April 3 In class: P5 final crit Due: P5 final videos, crowdfunding site, and marketing materials |
April 5 Lecture: Prototyping In class: reading discussion; wizard activity Read:Houde and Hill on What prototypes prototype and Synder on Making a paper prototype |
12 |
April 10 In class: reading discussion, P6 paper prototyping activity Due: P6 paper prototypes Read:Nielson on heuristic evaluation |
April 12 Lecture: Web Design In class: P6 worksession Read:Mike Horn's HTML5 Forms and JavaScript example |
13 |
April 17 Lecture: Evaluation In class: reading discussion, activity on web analytics and stats Read:Kohavi on a Practical Guide to Controlled Experiments on the Web, Gonick and Smith on the Cartoon Guide to Statistics |
April 19 No Class: Spring Carnival! |
14 |
April 24 In class: P6 interim crit Due: P6 preliminary web prototypes, evaluation plan, crowdfunding updates |
April 26 In class: P6 worksession; statistics tutorial |
15 |
May 1 In class: course evaluations, P6 worksession (make updates based on A-B testing) |
May 3 In class: final presentations (open to public) Due: Final presentations. Teams should present problem framing, design concepts, process documentation, funding results, A-B results, and final design. |
16 |
May 8 FINALS WEEK Update your team wiki page (and if necessary, deliver rewards to funders!) |
May 10 FINALS WEEK Due: one to two-page reflection on your innovation process (individual assignment) |
While there is a university-wide disciplinary committee which handles serious disciplinary matters referred to it, the responsibility for establishing disciplinary guidelines rests with each department. It is felt that the following set of rules can be uniformly and fairly applied in the Human-Computer Interaction Institute. First, cheating in any form is not permitted as an ethical or professional behavior and will not be tolerated. Cheating includes, but is not necessarily limited to:
Should any student be found guilty of cheating on a quiz, exam, homework or project, at minimum a zero grade will be recorded and then averaged in with the other grades (should there be any) for the term. Depending on the circumstances, and at the discretion of the instructor and the Department Head, the student may be failed in the course and may be expelled from the University. In any case, the University will be notified of any case of cheating or plagiarism. A repeated occurrence of cheating will be treated as an automatic failure (R grade) and expulsion from the University.
A subtler form of cheating arises in the form of plagiarism, which is defined as "passing off as one's own the ideas or works of another." Making use of reference material and failing to note (either at all or properly) the original source constitutes plagiarism. When two or more people work together on an individual project and each then turns in his/her individual report as though no collaboration was involved, this also is plagiarism. Simply rewriting another's words or thoughts, or rearranging another's materials, is in every sense plagiarism - unless the student properly and completely references such material, each and every time it is used and to the full extent of usage. Should a case of plagiarism arise, the initial responsibility for judging the seriousness of the offense will rest with the instructor. If the instructor feels that the student was simply sloppy in referencing the material used and plagiarized, a judgment of sloppy professionalism rather than cheating will be made. The grade for the paper, project or thesis will be lowered by at least one grade point. On the other hand, if the instructor feels that the student plagiarized flagrantly, and intentionally meant to mislead the instructor into thinking that the work was the student's own original work, the grade for the report, project or thesis will be recorded as zero.
It should be emphasized that any group collaboration that involves individual take-home projects, papers or theses should be carried out only with considerable discretion. That is, students are encouraged to discuss and collaborate among themselves on the various principles which are exposited in class or covered in the reading material, etc.; but any group discussion or collaboration which involves any specifics of take-home projects, papers or theses should be avoided - unless the ideas or efforts of others are properly noted. Put differently, when individual work and thinking is called for, group thinking and/or work is entirely inappropriate and is a form of plagiarism. In any case of cheating or plagiarism, the student may request a review of the instructor's decision by the department head, who will then make the final decision for the department. The student, of course, can appeal any faculty decision to the University Committee on Discipline. In a case of flagrant cheating by a graduate student on a thesis, the matter will be forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee for stronger action.