Quick Reference and Exam Strategy

Quick-Reference: Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics

1. Visibility of System Status — keep users informed via timely, appropriate feedback.
2. Match Between System and the Real World — speak the user’s language; follow real-world conventions.
3. User Control and Freedom — support undo/redo; provide clearly marked emergency exits.
4. Consistency and Standards — follow platform conventions; be internally consistent.
5. Error Prevention — design to prevent problems before they occur.
6. Recognition Rather Than Recall — minimise memory load; make options visible.
7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use — accelerators for experts; customisation.
8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design — no irrelevant or rarely-needed information.
9. Help Users Recognise, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors — plain-language error messages with solutions.
10. Help and Documentation — searchable, task-focused help.

Quick-Reference: The Six Gestalt Principles

Proximity · Similarity · Continuity · Closure · Figure/Ground · Common Fate

Every Gestalt answer: name → locate → explain effect. All three steps.

Quick-Reference: The Four Cognitive Walkthrough Questions

1. Will the user try to achieve the right effect?
2. Will the user notice that the correct action is available?
3. Will the user associate the correct action with the desired effect?
4. If the action is performed correctly, will the user see that progress is being made?

Quick-Reference: CUSTOM Stakeholder Types

Primary (direct, frequent users) · Secondary (occasional or intermediated users) · Tertiary (affected but never interact directly) · Facilitating (design, build, maintain the system)

Quick-Reference: Mathematical Laws

$\text{Fitts' Law: } \text{MT} = a + b\log_2\!\left(\frac{2D}{W}\right) \qquad \text{Hick's Law: } T = b\log_2(n+1)$

$\text{Similarity}(A,B) = \frac{\text{participants co-grouping } A,B}{\text{total}} \times 100\% \qquad \text{Miller: STM capacity } \approx 7 \pm 2$

Quick-Reference: The UCD Master Template

Requirements → User Research → Prototyping (Lo-Fi → Hi-Fi) → Evaluation (Analytical + Empirical) → loop back

Quick-Reference: Six Categories of Requirements

Functional · Data · Environmental · User Characteristics · Usability Goals (Effectiveness, Efficiency, Safety, Utility, Learnability, Memorability) · UX Goals (satisfying, enjoyable, motivating, …)

Quick-Reference: Key Methods

Method	One-line description
Heuristic Evaluation	Expert review against 10 heuristics; broad usability audit
Cognitive Walkthrough	Task-by-task learnability analysis via the 4 questions
Interview	Conversational, qualitative, rich, small sample
Questionnaire	Written survey; quantitative, large sample, low depth
Ethnography	Watch users in context over time; reveals real behaviour and meaning
Focus group	Moderated group discussion; consensus/conflict; groupthink risk
Card sorting	Users sort cards into groups; informs Information Architecture
HTA	Hierarchical decomposition of task into sub-tasks and actions
Persona	Research-based fictional archetype guiding design decisions
Lo-Fi prototype	Cheap, fast, throwaway; tests structure not visuals
Hi-Fi prototype	Realistic, detailed; tests final usability and aesthetics
Wizard of Oz	A human secretly simulates system responses for the user
KLM/GOMS	Predicts expert task time from unit operators

Exam Strategy: Mark-Scoring by Question Type

Question type	How to score marks
List X things (heuristics, stakeholders, requirements)	Name each item clearly plus one sentence of justification. Marks are for the justification.
Evaluate an interface (HE or CW)	HE: name heuristic → locate → explain why. CW: go action-by-action → answer all four questions → identify failures → propose redesigns.
Sketch a design	Draw 2–4 clearly labelled screens with captions; explicitly link each screen back to a stated requirement.
Compare two approaches (HE vs CW, method A vs B)	Use at least 3 named criteria; for each, state the difference and which wins in this specific context — not just parallel descriptions.
Design principle	State it clearly → motivate it with reference to the specific user group → tie it back to a requirement or research finding.
Requirements	Functional and non-functional, each phrased as a testable statement with a one-line rationale.
Gestalt	Name → locate → explain effect. Always all three steps.
Card sorting	Show working for every pair → interpret matrix → IA recommendation → sample-size caveat.

Top 10 Tripos Traps

1. Generic, un-named answers: “it’s easy to use” with no named theory — always name a heuristic, law, or framework.
2. Describing a method without applying it to the scenario: a textbook HE definition with no reference to the actual interface scores few marks.
3. Confusing “stakeholders” with “users”: always name at least one stakeholder who is not a direct user.
4. Vague, untestable requirements: “the app should be user-friendly” instead of a falsifiable statement.
5. Generic personas: “John, 25, likes technology” — make personas domain-specific with a concrete pain point.
6. Naming a Gestalt principle without locating it in the figure or explaining its effect.
7. Skipping working in card-sorting similarity calculations — always show every pair.
8. Treating small/anecdotal evidence as if it generalised — always check sample size and whether behaviour was observed or self-reported.
9. Listing all 14 Cognitive Dimensions instead of selecting 3–4 relevant to the system’s dominant activity and discussing trade-offs.
10. Treating UCD and card-sorting/IA as one-shot rather than iterative — feeding results back into the next cycle.

Final Exam Checklist

• Every substantive point references a named heuristic, law, or framework — not just common sense.
• At least one stakeholder named who is not a direct user, where relevant.
• Requirements are phrased as testable, falsifiable statements with rationales.
• Gestalt answers follow name → locate → explain effect.
• HE answers: heuristic + location + reasoning for every violation; severity rating where asked.
• CW answers: all four questions, per action, with Success/Fail and named cause for every failure.
• Card sorting: working shown for every pair, IA implication stated, sample-size caveat.
• Comparisons use named criteria, not parallel descriptions.
• Design principles are motivated — tied to the specific user group and a stated requirement.
• Sketches are labelled and explicitly linked to stated requirements.
• Time budget matches mark allocation — no over-writing on low-mark sub-parts.

Two well-structured, fully-justified answers, each built around the UCD template and populated with specific named theory, will comfortably earn a First.