Students combine fast principle discrimination, their own studied interface, and an original unfamiliar-resource comparison. The goal is not to fill pages; it is to make every claim traceable to evidence, a user task and interface purpose.
Authority boundary: the 2026 specification confirms a digital end-of-year examination, questions in short- or extended-answer format, supplied resources, and prior study of an interface chosen by the candidate. It does not guarantee that the 2024 or 2025 five-part paper will be repeated. This rehearsal practises those confirmed demands without pretending to predict the paper.
Online digital examination; computer access required; questions in short- or extended-answer format; supplied examination resources, including a Nielsen list; principles will be drawn from Mātāpono Māori, Nielsen, internal/external consistency and accessibility.
Candidates study an interface of their own choice. Task 10 builds the evidence bank, but students should not assume that notes, screenshots or the organiser can be taken into the external.
The specification uses the guidance “no more than 800–1200 words.” Treat that wording as guidance, not an 800-word minimum or a target to pad. Complete causal reasoning matters more than volume.
The same sections, videos, scenarios, interface types or grade cut scores used in past papers. Use 2024–2025 resources as rehearsal evidence, not as a prophecy about 2026.
| Time | Phase | Student action | Kaiako move |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | Preview and plan | Scan all three sections. Mark command verbs, user/task, evidence sources and approximate time. | Do not reteach content. Confirm only how to navigate the original resource. |
| 5–15 | Short precision | Answer three short scenarios. Separate features that apply different principles inside one interaction. | Collect evidence of confusion, especially prevention/recovery and Māori label substitution. |
| 15–35 | Studied interface | From memory, examine two principles in the chosen interface and evaluate one significant limitation or improvement. | No notes in the first attempt. Offer memory cues only as an explicit scaffold round later. |
| 35–60 | Unfamiliar comparison | Compare Interface A and B for the same user completing the same event-finding task; judge effectiveness and justify two improvements. | Prompt “same action?” when students compare unrelated features. |
| 60–65 | Self-check | Mark evidence, principle, user/task, effect, purpose, comparison and improvements using the symbols in the pack. | Silence. Students repair one missing causal link before peer review. |
| +10 | Peer review | Use the readiness checklist; write one question, not a grade. | Model a useful question: “What evidence supports this judgement for this user?” |
Do not reward length by itself. Evaluation adds a supported judgement, significance, suitability, trade-off, like-for-like comparison and a specific principle-grounded improvement.
Short 1: progress indicator plus Cancel
Visibility + user control/freedomThe progress indicator communicates current state; Cancel provides an exit from the ongoing action. A strong response separates the mechanisms instead of forcing the whole interaction into one label.
Short 2: accurate te reo search and tohutō
Mātāpono Māori within HCI scopeThe feature supports accurate te reo use and a real information-finding task. The explanation must still link language support to the user’s search success and the interface’s purpose.
Short 3: comments = whanaungatanga Evidence test
Possible — more evidence neededComments permit interaction, but the relationship, reciprocity, community purpose and moderation context are not yet known. Generic communication may be the more precise account.
Unfamiliar interface: like-for-like judgement
B better supports the visible low-vision needs; keyboard evidence is missingB uses labelled controls, stronger contrast, explicit availability text and clear saved-state feedback. These reduce visible perception and memory barriers. A shows more events at once, which may make scanning faster for some users; that compactness is a legitimate trade-off rather than proof A is wholly unusable. A static mock-up cannot establish whether either interface is keyboard-operable, whether focus is visible and logical, or whether each control activates correctly. Naming that evidence gap is valid evaluation.
Two defensible improvements
Specific, new and principle-groundedFor A: add text labels to icons, encode availability with text/shape as well as colour, and improve contrast. For B: offer an optional compact view while preserving readable scaling, or keep filters visible after scrolling. Keyboard access and focus order should be tested before a keyboard-specific change is claimed as necessary. Other answers are valid when they target an observed limitation and predict a user/purpose effect.
Studied-interface response No single key
Evidence quality gateReject generic “easy for all users”, features not actually observed, unlike-task comparisons, or improvements the interface already has. Accept competing principles where the student chooses one and makes the mechanism and user effect coherent.
Three short questions, a studied-interface response, two original unfamiliar-interface mock-ups and a self-check. No copyrighted exemplar answers.
Open practice pack →A one-stop before/during/after checklist, traffic-light confidence check, evaluation test and next-practice decision.
Open readiness checklist →Return to Task 9’s mixed-principle traps. Practise function and user consequence before another full response.
Return to Task 10. Replace adjectives such as “easy” with a state change, user action and observable result.
Practise one like-for-like comparison and one specific improvement at a time. Add a trade-off before expanding length.
Use a deliberate plan: answer every section, lead with strongest evidence, and make one complete causal chain before adding a second.